ChrisWeigant.com

In Praise Of Court Jesters

[ Posted Thursday, May 11th, 2017 – 18:01 PDT ]

[Program Note: This article was originally supposed to run on Tuesday. Given the late-breaking news about James Comey, however, I had to pre-empt it. So while I think I've cleaned up all the "last night" phrases to read "Monday night," if I've missed a few, this is the reason why and I apologize in advance.]

The medieval idea of a court jester has always been an intriguing one -- the motley fool sitting at the foot of the throne with near-absolute impunity for any improper thing he might say. Now, I have no real idea how historically valid the stereotype is, or how prevalent the phenomenon ever actually was. Ye kings of olde never seemed restrained enough in the use of absolute power to put up with a jester constantly cracking wise (for the lords and ladies of the court to titter at), but then my knowledge of this period is sketchy at best. I am no medieval historian, so who's to know how valid or widespread the concept ever actually was?

There must be something to the myths, though, even if only in a Jungian-archetypical kind of way. Because they certainly still remain with us. In today's world, of course, they are not dressed in motley (well, some less so than others...); and instead of a perch near the throne, they crack wise on television shows to an audience of millions. They are our late-night comedians. Two of them were in the news earlier this week, but before I get to Monday night's performances by Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Meyers, I'd like to confess my own evolution in favor of our modern court jesters.

I don't remember when the first time I saw a statistic showing that more Americans got their political news from late-night comics than from traditional sources (such as newspapers, television news, etc.), but it was at least two decades ago. Maybe even three. More people get their political knowledge from the court jesters than from the court reporters, in other words, and it's been that way for a long time now. While I don't remember exactly how long, I do remember my reaction upon hearing this fact: I was appalled and astonished that it was true. How could people pay more attention to comedians than journalists, on issues of such great importance?

The real reason is there are many who are just politically lazy. They spend enough time and energy worrying about and dealing with their own lives to have much energy left over to pay attention to whatever current idiocy is emanating from Washington. And they love a good laugh at the end of the day. So who was I to criticize their viewing habits? At least they're learning something about politics, I reasoned. Still, I must admit I was shocked at the statistic.

Here's where bias probably had a lot to do with my thinking, though. When I did hear this for the first time, I almost never bothered watching late-night comedy. I wasn't that into television as a whole, I had to wake up early to get to my job, and I wasn't a fan of any of the late-night hosts. I almost never saw Carson, and didn't even watch on an occasional basis until the era of Jay Leno and David Letterman. So maybe it was out of my own ignorance that I formed my views, I will fully admit.

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Leno and Letterman were pretty much it for late-night comedy. Leno was West Coast and relaxed, with a mostly-inoffensive manner of cracking jokes in his monologue. Call it the "Golly Gee School" of comedic style (Jimmy Fallon is an adherent of this style today, it's worth pointing out). By contrast, Letterman was East Coast Edgy, which occasionally crossed the line into being rather mean-spirited (at least, to my ears). Monologue styles aside, though, Letterman was by far the better interviewer of politicians. He certainly wasn't afraid of causing offense when grilling a presidential candidate, and I've long believed (without any tangible proof) that his abject ridicule of John McCain for the entire month before the 2008 election certainly didn't help McCain on Election Day (the spat started when McCain cancelled a Letterman appearance to "rush back to Washington to fix the financial crisis," although Letterman was later incensed to learn that McCain had actually stayed the night in New York City).

But that was much later on. In the 90s, viewers didn't have a lot to choose from, and it was fairly bland and inoffensive. A lot of poking fun without much scathing political satire, in other words. But again, maybe it's just because I didn't watch it all that much -- my own bias or lack of experience speaking, in other words.

At some point, though, things began to change. Shows like Politically Incorrect and The Daily Show appeared, and late-night comedy got a lot sharper and more detailed. When Leno and Letterman told jokes about comedians, the joke was always the most important thing. If facts needed fudging a little bit to make the punchline funnier, then so be it. Details weren't that important, while getting a big laugh was. But suddenly there was competition that was a lot more in-depth and accurate. This proliferated across cable, bringing a new dimension to what the audience grew to expect from their court jesters.

Comedians are, for the most part, a pretty liberal bunch. There are few funny conservatives, or at the least, fewer than there are funny liberals. For every Dennis Miller there are five or ten Wanda Skyeses, in other words. So maybe it was the election of George W. Bush which unleashed this new era of late-night political comedy. It certainly was a golden age, that's for sure. But comedy didn't dry up and wither on the vine when Obama was elected. And we seem to be entering a new golden age again with Donald Trump in charge (I do wonder if they've cut back on the writing staffs, since most Trump jokes just about write themselves).

But the real reason I'm writing this today is in praise of where late-night comedy now finds itself. Because the late-night comics now seem to actually be doing a better job at holding politicians accountable than, say, all the experts on the Sunday morning political chatfests. This seems to be a fairly new development, or at least one that has been gradually increasing over the past few years.

Monday night there were two notable bits on the late-night shows. The first came from Jimmy Kimmel, on ABC. Last week, Kimmel gave a tearful plea to America after going through the wrenching experience of having a newborn son go through heart surgery. Everyone's son should be entitled to the same care, Kimmel pleaded, without taking into account their ability to pay. Since then, Kimmel took time off (for obvious reasons), and only returned to the airwaves Monday night. He became a right-wing target during his absence, so he addressed his critics directly. After noting a few choice conservative headlines (Washington Times: "Shut Up Jimmy Kimmel, You Elitist Creep"), Kimmel snarked: "I would like to apologize for saying that children in America should have health-care. It was insensitive. It was offensive, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me."

Kimmel then ran a clip of Newt Gingrich claiming that when newborns have heart problems, doctors immediately help without regard to the parents' ability to pay. Unlike many journalists who have had to confront this trope, Kimmel responded bluntly and honestly:

Yes, it is true that if you have an emergency, they will do an operation. And that's terrific if your baby's health problems are all solved during that one visit. The only problem is that never, ever happens. We've had a dozen doctor's appointments since our son had surgery. You've got a cardiologist, the pediatrician, surgeon; some kids need an ambulance to transport them. That doesn't even count the parents who have to miss work for all this stuff. Those details, Newt forgot to mention. I don't know if the double layers of Spanx are restricting the blood flow to his brain.

Kimmel then rolled a clip of Gingrich from the same interview, critiquing the state of humor in America, saying all the comedians are all "so enraged at Donald Trump that they can't be funny." Kimmel responded:

Gee, I wonder why we're so angry. Maybe it has something to do with, I don't know, you? Listen, Newt Gingrich does know a lot about comedy. This is the guy who helped lead the impeachment effort against Bill Clinton for trying to cover his up his affair -- while he was having an affair. That's hilarious. Come on. Whatever you want to say about him. Thank you, Newt. There's a reason he's named after a lizard, and that was it.

Kimmel then had a live back-and-forth with Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who was the one who, after Kimmel's initial emotional monologue, had said: "I ask, does it pass the Jimmy Kimmel test? Would a child born with congenital heart disease be able to get everything he or she would need in that first year of life?"

Kimmel took the opportunity to further define it: "The Jimmy Kimmel test, I think should be, no family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise, because they can't afford it. Can that be the Jimmy Kimmel test? As simple as that? Is that oversimplifying it?" Cassidy responded "You're on the right track," and "we have to make it affordable for them, too."

To which Kimmel shot back: "I can think of a way to pay for it is don’t give a huge tax cut to millionaires like me and instead, leave it how it is. I mean, that would be one way. That's my vote." I'd love to see some highly-compensated journalist make a similarly-blunt case on Sunday morning, but I'm not exactly holding my breath or anything.

The second performance worth noting Monday night came from Seth Meyers, on NBC. This one was even more astonishing, because while Kimmel's plea was widely covered in the national news, Meyers didn't cause anywhere near the same political waves. Meyers is currently the most intelligent and hilariously caustic late-night comic on broadcast television (i.e., non-cable) when it comes to politics, with Stephen Colbert a close second. Almost every night Seth's "A Closer Look" segments are a quick primer on the political idiocies of the day. Plus, they're really funny (although that's a purely personal opinion, I admit).

Monday night, Meyers revealed that he had gotten an email from the office of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, complaining about one of last week's "A Closer Look" segments, where Seth eviscerated the Republican health care bill, as well as those House Republicans who passed it. Just consider that concept for a moment: one of the two most powerful Republicans in Congress took the time to try lobbying a late-late-night comic in an attempt to get better coverage. To me, that's an astonishing thing right there. Seth Meyers is not a journalist, he is a comedian. But apparently he wields equal power to the journalists, as evidenced by Ryan making the effort to convince him of the Republican spin. That's pretty downright astonishing when you think about it, really.

Meyers answered Ryan's spin with facts, with a few punchlines tossed in for good measure. He laid out in great detail, point by point, why Ryan's spin job was misleading at best and completely hypocritical and false at worst. He closed with the obvious conclusions:

Meyers took Ryan to task for defending the A.H.C.A.'s provision that would let states permit insurance companies to discriminate against patients with pre-existing conditions. Ryan had argued that this would be negated by the fact that the bill required insurance companies to set up high-risk pools, but as Meyers pointed out, high-risk pools for older and sicker people historically "have provided worse coverage at much higher costs."

Meyers didn't mince words in his closing argument, saying, "The bottom line is this: Republicans rushed this bill through for ideological reasons, despite the fact that every analysis shows it would cut taxes for the wealthy; raise premiums for older, sicker people; and kick millions off insurance."

Once again, Meyers had much sharper criticism, complete with the easy and obvious counterarguments, responding directly to a Republican politician -- something notably missing on Sunday mornings.

I've long believed that politics has become indistinguishable from entertainment. Hey, I came of age in the Reagan Era, so I learned that lesson fairly early on. But journalism is also entering this vortex, and is getting a lot closer to entertainment (and comedy) as well. The two may not be morphing into one quite yet, but they sure are getting closer.

This, too, is not exactly a new trend. The big networks decided a long time ago that their news divisions had to pull their own weight and become more entertaining (trolling for better ratings). Network anchors became entertainment superstars. At the same time, talk radio birthed right-wing "entertainment/journalism" in the form of Rush Limbaugh and all his fellow travelers. This has left us with hybrid shows that could be called either entertainment or journalism, depending on your definition. The recently-fired Bill O'Reilly was probably the most prominent -- entertaining his audience but also interviewing actual politicians in semi-journalistic fashion. On the left, there are people like Rachel Maddow, who provide both journalism and entertainment for her audience. So I guess it's not all that surprising that Paul Ryan would attempt reaching out to Seth Meyers.

Kimmel and Meyers, though, are doing a better job at deconstructing Republican spin on the health care bill than the journalists. Watch either of those segments and compare it to the Sunday morning interviews of Republicans last weekend. The Sunday morning professional journalists could not break through the wall of falsehood the Republicans had constructed to defend what is in essence an indefensible bill, but the comedians did so with ease. They've got an advantage, of course, since the politicians aren't usually in the room while the monologue is underway. The journalists have to have their facts handy and confront politicians to their face, while the comedy shows are pre-taped and scripted in advance. There's no denying the comedians have an edge for process reasons alone.

Still, I find it notable that the comedians are now giving the journalists a real run for their money in the political commentary field. What used to be journalistic news shows have morphed into entertainment venues, further blurring the line between the two. I'm not quite ready to say that journalism has become indistinguishable from comedic entertainment, but it's undeniable that the two have moved a lot closer these days. Which is a good thing, really. And which is why I wrote this paean to our modern-day court jesters. In other words: Keep up the good work!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

85 Comments on “In Praise Of Court Jesters”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Wanda Skyeses

    He means Wanda Sykeses-es

    Gollum ;)

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Meyers is currently the most intelligent and hilariously caustic late-night comic on broadcast television (i.e., non-cable) when it comes to politics, with Stephen Colbert a close second.

    I totally agree! I still love Jon Oliver as well, but his show is weekly and doesn't focus on politics every episode.

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Just left a response to your comments under the previous column.

    A

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i liked dwayne johnson as "the rock obama"

    https://youtu.be/FEH9iqWm_xQ

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    The comics are sharper because they aren't afraid to take a position, whereas the journalist largely still feel they have to define "objectivity" as a refusal to take sides no matter where the facts lead, i.e. "the Dem here just said something accurate and the Repub just said something untrue, but if I point that out it will look like I'm siding with the Dem. What to do?

    But, thank goodness, that's starting to fray, finally, with MSM figures using words like "liar" and "lying" and "lie" when describing things liars say, as well as them doing a whole lot more confronting of falsehoods.

    But meanwhile, the comics aren't constrained by trying to uphold an unobtainable standard and can, instead, just tell the truth, wittily.

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Meyers didn't mince words in his closing argument, saying, "The bottom line is this: Republicans rushed this bill through for ideological reasons, despite the fact that every analysis shows it would cut taxes for the wealthy; raise premiums for older, sicker people; and kick millions off insurance."

    Change REPUBLICANS to DEMOCRATS and the statement is STILL dead on ballz accurate..

    So what's Meyer's point???

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    But, thank goodness, that's starting to fray, finally, with MSM figures using words like "liar" and "lying" and "lie" when describing things liars say,

    You mean lies like"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" and "I welcome the debate on my domestic surveillance programs"....

    Do you mean lies like that??

    Of course you don't...

    Face reality.. Ya'all DON'T give a damn about lying and liars.. You just hate it when REPUBLICANS do it... Ya support to the hilt the liars that have a '-D' after their names...

    Ya'all are hysterically up in arms about millions of Americans losing their health insurance under the GOP plan..

    But NONE of ya'all gave two shitz when millions of Americans lost their health insurance under the DIM plan...

    So, what can we deduce from these FACTS??

    That ya'all don't really care when Americans lose health insurance...

    Ya'all only care about having some blunt object with which to beat the GOP over the head with....

    Party Uber Alles

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's time for Americans to start taking Trump seriously ... and launch actions to remove him from office ... instead of watching and laughing while he removes people of integrity from their offices.

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    It's time for Americans to start taking Trump seriously ... and launch actions to remove him from office ... instead of watching and laughing while he removes people of integrity from their offices.

    I completely (kinda) agree...

    But these people never learn.. They laughed at Trump's candidacy and attacked him with childish and immature name-calling and what happened??

    He won the nomination...

    Then these same people laughed and ridiculed Trump and called him MORE childish and immature names and what happened??

    He became President Of The United States..

    One would think that these people would learn their lesson...

    But noooo...

    Here they are doing the EXACT same thing that has failed TWICE before and hoping for a different result...

    The very definition of insanity...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Here's a little cop humor for you.. :D

    COP: Turn around!!!
    Scumbag: Every now and then I get a little bit lonely
    and you're never coming round...
    COP: Turn around!!!!
    Scumbag: Every now and then I......
    {{gets tased}}

    :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz

    But all humor aside, here is the problem faced by Weigantians..

    It's time for Americans to start taking Trump seriously ...

    They have based their entire existence on one simple (to them) fact...

    Trump is a clown..

    For them to now take President Trump seriously would undermine EVERYTHING they have said and thought for the last year and a half..

    It would force them to admit ...*GASP* *HORROR OF HORRORS*.... that they were wrong...

    And, having been here for wha?? going on 12 years now..??? I think I can say with complete authority that no one here (NEN) can admit when they are wrong...

    So, that's the dilemma.. They CAN'T take President Trump seriously...

    So, they just wallow in their PTDS....

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a little political humour for you...

    "I love the smell of bananas in the evening; smells like ... a banana republic.

    Now, THAT was funny. Because it is so damned true.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    "I love the smell of bananas in the evening; smells like ... a banana republic.

    Now, THAT was funny. Because it is so damned true.

    If it's true, we only have Obama to thank for it..

    It was Obama who established the Imperial Presidency that Trump is now taking full advantage of...

    So, blame Obama for the bananas :D

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're not talking about an imperial presidency, we're talking about obstruction of justice.

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    We're not talking about an imperial presidency, we're talking about obstruction of justice.

    You mean, like when Obama changed the law to obstruct the justice of illegal immigration...

    If the circumstances of the here and now have taught us ANYTHING, it's that "obstruction" is in the eye of the beholder...

    And one of the hallmarks of an Imperial Presidency is the fact that they can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to obstruct..

    And, once again, the facts clearly show that it was the Obama Administration who elevated obstructing justice to an art form...

    The fact that President Trump is continuing Obama's legacy in that regard is disappointing, no arguing that..

    But let's be clear that it IS Obama's legacy...

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    You mean, like when Obama changed the law to obstruct the justice of illegal immigration...

    "Prosecutorial Discretion" is just a politically correct way of saying Obstruction Of Justice....

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It is my experience that Republican's aren't much into humor. I base this entirely, and unscientifically, on my friends and ex-co workers, but the sample size is reasonably large. Where I live, if I didn't have Republican friends, I almost wouldn't have any friends at all.

    To the extent that Republicans tell me jokes, they are of the knock-knock variety. If Republicans were into humor, AM radio would be full of humor, as would Fox News. Roger Ailes wasn't into humor, although he was into other things. Same other things as Bill O' as it turned out.

    The only joke that all my Republican friends like is:

    A man hears a knock on his front door. He gets up, and opens the door. He sees a snail on his porch. The man grabs the snail and flings him over the porch rail. The snail tumbles end over end thru the air and disappears over a hedge. The man rubs his hands in satisfaction, goes into his house, and shuts the door.

    Three years later, the same man hears a knock on his door. He opens it and sees the snail again.

    "WHAT THE HELL WAS ALL THAT ABOUT?!!!!" says the snail.

    The above was rated the World's Funniest Joke a few years ago. It is the hydrogen bomb of jokes. If you want to ensure a Republican laugh, you need to go nuclear.

    If you want a good tactical nuke at a crowded party, say to clear a path to the snacks or drinks, try a pirate joke.

    Q: Why do pirates wear hats?
    A: To cover their Buc'in Ears!

    Add "yar" and "matey" to enhance the yield.

  18. [18] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    delayed response to comment 53 from Comey Out!

    "Greenwald, again. His favorite source lives in Russia right now, y'know.
    Asserting that right-wing ideologues like Kissinger and Kirkpatrick are 'central' to US tradition is akin to FOX's habit of equating the SDS and Black Panther movements to left-wing doctrine. While those people and movements certainly existed, they were never 'central' to American ideology, which for most Americans, and much of the rest of the world, remains: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    Oh, and spreading Democracy."

    Geez dude.
    You obviously didn't read the article.

    But thanks for three good laughs.

    The first is mentioning left wing movements which never had any power and were attacked by the right wing establishment duopoly (you wish it was just FOX) in a comparison with the "central ideology" of the right wing establishment duopoly... as if your example doesn't prove the very point Greenwald was making.

    The second is the attempted guilt by association tactic so favored by right wing ideologues to dismiss Greenwald for using Snowden as a "source" when every media outlet in the country used the material he provided... AND the "lives in Russia" bit as if the right wing ideology shared by our two party duopoly (but enforced by Obama the Democrat) isn't responsible for preventing Snowden from leaving Russia... once again proving the very point Greenwald was making.

    And third, of course, and by far the funniest, a Hillary supporter denying the centrality of right wing realpolitik to the two party duopoly establishment by mentioning the right wing nut Kissinger, who Hillary publicly praised and embraced, and whose endorsement Hillary actively sought out in last years election... yet again proving the very point that Greenwald was making.

    The central argument you chose not to engage on of course is that both Dems and Repubs have embraced authoritarians and dictators AND actively undermined democracy, taken lives, eliminated liberty, and put our happiness first whenever it suits our national security and/or economic interests... rather than seeking to spread our values around the world.

    -
    -

    And just as a side note, it wasn't all that long ago that you were defending right wing ideology executed by our Democratic president, including murder, right here in this comment section.
    So, while a vast number of Americans may be ignorant or in denial about the centrality of right wing policies in our establishment duopoly, you clearly are not.
    Either you can't remember the policies you were defending mere months ago, or you are intentionally misleading people in a blatantly hypocritical attempt at political gain against Trump.

    And for the record, "much of the rest of the world" is fully cognizant and critical of the hypocrisy in the US policies under discussion.
    But the attempted appeal to the majority tactic has been noted.

    Just in case anybody missed what this debate is about, I will provide the link I offered in response to Balthy's false and selective history in comment 30 under Comey Out! one more time-

    https://theintercept.com/2017/05/02/trumps-support-and-praise-of-despots-is-central-to-the-u-s-tradition-not-a-deviation-from-it/

    Isn't it funny how neoliberals feel the need to both defend and deny the reality publicly embraced by neocons, while actually embracing and advancing the same ideology?
    It's almost as if they are attempting to keep up appearances to deceive their base of voters.

    A

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    A man hears a knock on his front door. He gets up, and opens the door. He sees a snail on his porch. The man grabs the snail and flings him over the porch rail. The snail tumbles end over end thru the air and disappears over a hedge. The man rubs his hands in satisfaction, goes into his house, and shuts the door.

    Three years later, the same man hears a knock on his door. He opens it and sees the snail again.

    "WHAT THE HELL WAS ALL THAT ABOUT?!!!!" says the snail.

    The above was rated the World's Funniest Joke a few years ago.

    THAT's what passes for funny??? :eyeroll:

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone,

    Re: #18

    Word....

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    14

    The obstruction of justice by the Obama administration in the prevention of prosecution for war crimes including torture, and the massive frauds on Wall Street can't be ignored.

    That said, the two wrongs make a right defense by our resident trumpling is of course nonsense.

    Both are wrong, and all such crimes should be prosecuted.

    But selective enforcement does tend to harm credibility and undermine the concept of rule of law.

    A

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    That said, the two wrongs make a right defense by our resident trumpling is of course nonsense.

    ANd, if that's what I said, you would have a point..

    But it's not so you don't.. It's the same NON-POINT you made when you were wrong when you said I broke my promise by showing up here again...

    I know, I know.. You are incapable of admitting when you are wrong... :D It's part of your charm..

    But the facts clearly show that you were wrong..

    But selective enforcement does tend to harm credibility and undermine the concept of rule of law.

    Agreed... Especially when such selection is solely and completely based on a political agenda...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    I see that name-calling is still part and parcel to the "intellect" around here..

    I thought it was limited to the more moronic minimal intelligent, bigoted members of the WPG...

    I guess it's still the way things are...

    Sad.....

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    SNL ford-carter debate was an absolute classic:

    https://youtu.be/QP_aZcsq7dU

    "it was my understanding that there would be no math..."

  25. [25] 
    altohone wrote:

    20

    You do realize I am criticizing Balthy and neoliberal Dems for being like you... not just the hypocrisy of denying it, right?

    22

    "ANd, if that's what I said, you would have a point.."

    I'm not sure you are aware of what you are conveying or the obvious implications... ever.

    And it's certainly not charming.

    A

  26. [26] 
    Paula wrote:

    Putin's Puppet speaks to Lester Holt:

    “When I spoke with Putin, he asked me whether or not I would see Lavrov. Now what do I—should I say ‘No, I’m not gonna see him?’ I said, ‘I will see him.’”

    Oooooh, 45 is so leaderly and uncompromised.

  27. [27] 
    Paula wrote:

    If President Trump’s shockingly sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey had violated some statute or constitutional provision, our judicial branch could easily have remedied that misstep. What the president did was worse. It was a challenge to the very premises of our system of checks and balances precisely because it violated no mere letter of the law but its essential spirit. No one, not even a president, is above the law. And thus no public official, high or petty, can simply fire those our system trusts to investigate and remedy that official’s possible bribery, treason, or other disloyalty to the nation. [...]

    In the end, the most important task is to credibly track down the details of the global financial entanglements that have ensnared this administration from the outset, and that have led to litigation against Trump under the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. That is likely the key to unlocking the mystery of what underlying conduct is so terrible that the Trump administration is willing to tie itself into knots and disgrace itself on the world stage to conceal its conduct.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/11/trump-firing-comey-worse-than-breaking-law/101526232/

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    The only way to make sense of this week’s stunning events is to conclude that there is something that President Trump desperately wants to hide. [...] If this were a criminal trial, prosecutors would allege that the president was displaying “consciousness of guilt” — that he was acting in a way no innocent person would act. Indeed, the only other president to try to head off an investigation by firing the chief investigator was Richard Nixon. [...]

    I do believe in mere coincidences, up to a point. And I know that conspiracy theories usually turn out to be wrong. But I can see no explanation for Trump’s bizarre attitude toward the allegations of Russian meddling other than a desire to conceal something. [...]

    If Trump wanted to end this scrutiny by firing Comey, he may have had the opposite effect. Ask yourself one question: Have you ever seen a coverup with no underlying crime? Neither have I.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-seems-to-be-staging-a-coverup-so-whats-the-crime/2017/05/11/d728c58a-3681-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.487c05221426

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    You do realize I am criticizing Balthy and neoliberal Dems for being like you... not just the hypocrisy of denying it, right?

    I realize that you are criticizing Balthy and neoliberal Dems for being how you THINK I am..

    I'm not sure you are aware of what you are conveying or the obvious implications... ever.

    I am not, nor have I ever been responsible for your perceptions of what I am conveying..

    I said I would check back on occasion to see if sanity had returned to Weigantia..

    You claimed I broke a promise by returning, even though I CLEARLY conveyed exactly what I meant..

    Again, I am not responsible for how you wish to perceive what I convey...

    And it's certainly not charming.

    I don't know why you think "charm" has anything to do with anything..

    Once again, one of your skewed and whacked perceptions..

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    Charles Pierce writes about something I noted yesterday: Money Laundering.

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55048/trump-russia-finances/

  31. [31] 
    Paula wrote:

    And DT tweets:

    James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

    The Orange Man has always had the soul of a Loan Sharks enforcer. Or a mobster. Just what is he saying here? Did he "tape" his dinner with Comey wherein he tried to get Comey to take a Loyalty Pledge? (Totalitarian much?) Does he think Comey's refusal to take such a pledge will prove there's no merit to the Russia probe? Does he think it, in combination with his certified letter will just settle the whole matter?

    JUST.HOW.STUPID.IS.HE? Or delusional? Seriously?

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    JUST.HOW.STUPID.IS.HE? Or delusional? Seriously?

    And yet he kicked YOUR hero's ass six ways from Sunday....

    So, how stupid is SHE that she would lose to someone like Donald Trump!? :D

    No matter how bad you try and make Trump, it will always make your biatch that much worse.... :D

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: 45 taping: doesn't he get that if he's busily taping people, and admits that, those tapes can be demanded?

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula: I knew a politician who used to carry a pocket tape recorder just for that very purpose.

    But I think Trump's playing a double bluff on this one: there is no tape, and Trump knows it. He's trying to convince US.

    Unfortunately for him, he'll eventually have to admit that, because subpoenas are unforgiving.

    As for Comey, my guess is that he'd stand behind every word he's ever uttered.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, how stupid is SHE that she would lose to someone like Donald Trump!?

    Really getting tired of re-litigating the election, but I'll point out that it wasn't stupid to run against a human disaster like Trump, but it was pretty stupid to vote for him.

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    Really getting tired of re-litigating the election,

    Waaaaaa Waaaaaaa Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?? :D

    but I'll point out that it wasn't stupid to run against a human disaster like Trump,

    Of course it wasn't stoopid to run against Donald Trump...

    It was TOTALLY stoopid and UTTERLY moronic to *LOSE* to a "human disaster" like Donald Trump...

    As bad as you think Donald Trump is, NOT-45 is that much worse for LOSING to Donald Trump...

    And, until you can acknowledge that *FACT* you will never have any moral or ethical leg to stand on in your throes of your PTDS sickness....

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Really getting tired of re-litigating the election,

    'Sides.. It wasn't ME that has re-litigated the election..

    WaPoop re-litigated the election and guess what..

    Not only did NOT-45 LOSE the Electoral College... *AGAIN*....

    She ALSO LOST the Vanity Vote as well!!! :D

    hehehehehehehehe

    Face it.. NOT-45 is a text-book definition of LUSER..... :D

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    oh yeah, how about tina fey in the palin-couric interview!

    https://youtu.be/8HsyEvr5Pnw

    "katie i'd like to use one of my life-lines, i want to phone a friend"

    ha!

    JL

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Put it to you this way, Balthy....

    As long as you go on and on about how bad Donald Trump is...

    I'll be here to point out how much WORSE NOT-45 is for losing to Donald Trump... :D

  40. [40] 
    Paula wrote:

    [34] Balthasar: Actually, re: Orange-man tapes, you do have to wonder. After all, he was taping people at Mar-a-Lego wasn't he? Remember he was eavesdropping on his staff -- we read about that before the election.

    But yeah, it's most likely a ham-handed attempt to scare Comey, which brings me back full circle: HOW.STUPID.IS.HE? Now that he's cut Comey loose, does he think Comey -- also possessor of a hefty ego -- is going to sit there and let him destroy his, Comey's, reputation?

    The most positive thing I've been reading about Comey is how much his subordinates loved him. That means something. (HRC was also well-loved by staff and peers -- DT is hated and feared, but I digress.)

    A trip to the FBI by 45 was cancelled because staff there were not going to be friendly. I foresee a tsunami of Deep Throaterism, among other things, ahead. Meanwhile, WH staffers now tying themselves in knots trying to deal with the "tapes" question -- is DT taping or isn't he?

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Hell, forget the utterly incompetence that was the NOT-45 campaign...

    Look at the entirety of the Democrat Party..

    OVER *ONE THOUSAND* political seats lost in six short years...

    How ya'all can even get out of BED in the morning is beyond me!! :D

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    {41] Sargent Schultz: "I love that my beloved has successfully broken laws and threatens our national security every day and gets away with it! That's the problem with Dems -- they're too law abiding! Don't you get it? Lying, cheating, stealing, accosting women and girls and screwing over the little guys is the true American Way!"

    Patriotic Americans are troubled by the Wanna-be-Dictator-Idiot-In-Chief. Deplorables LOVE their Idiot-in-Chief because he expresses their every instinct perfectly.

    But I'll give you this, Schultzie, It IS easier to get out of bed each day when you aren't weighed down by intelligence, ethics, a conscience, or morality.

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Patriotic Americans are troubled by the Wanna-be-Dictator-Idiot-In-Chief.

    And yet your bitch not only LOST a rematch, she ALSO lost in the vanity vote!!! :D

    And it was a LEFT WING rag who conducted the rematch....

    And your bitch STILL lost!!!! :D

    Explain that...

    Deplorables LOVE their Idiot-in-Chief because he expresses their every instinct perfectly.

    And your hero lost to that "idiot in chief"....

    So that doesn't say much for her, now does it?? :D

    But I'll give you this, Schultzie, It IS easier to get out of bed each day when you aren't weighed down by intelligence, ethics, a conscience, or morality.

    So THAT's how yer able to get out of bed.... :D

    Face reality, sugar... NOT-45 is a has been.. There are more Democrats than Republicans who wish she would just disappear and let the Democrat Party actually try and WIN some elections...

  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:

    Bernie released a video on FB calling for an Independent Prosecutor.

    https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155909970552908/

    Good.

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    Schultzie, like the tiny-handed one, can't go past the election because that would force him to look a the smoking wreckage his beloved is making of the presidency and the rule of law and America's reputation around the world.

    Well Sarge, the "I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING!" suits you beautifully. Your constant references to the election are much like Humpty Trumpty's constant references to his (falsified) election numbers and (pathetic) inauguration turnout, only he gets to tell the lies, all you get to do is repeat them. Sad.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [18] You missed a great opportunity to use this photo op:

    https://cdn20.patchcdn.com/ap/22877253/20170510/123026/styles/T600x450/public/article_images/ap_17130556900842-1494430811-8948.jpg

    Sure, Trump can meet with Kissinger, but does he understand a word the man says? My money is on "no".

    Greenwald is right about one thing, Realpolitik has been a thread in international diplomacy and American policymaking since it was first conceived, and the far left has never been comfortable with that.

    I find it somewhat ironic that Greenwald should choose as an example Jimmy Carter, who went out of his way to mitigate that by connecting American foreign policy to the Human Rights agenda while in office, a move that greatly distressed the Soviets (and American conservatives) at the time.

    And in this latest diatribe, Greenwald finds himself carrying water for the Russians, who are again chafing at being called out for human rights abuses within their borders. The giveaway is this quote from the article:

    "Can anyone possibly believe that — even when U.S. leaders paid lip service to human rights improvements — there was anything remotely genuine about it? Condemning human rights abuses is an instrument that the U.S. cynically uses to punish adversaries."

    Couldn't have been said better by comrade Putin himself.

    The truth is, that American virtue speaks for itself, and is evidenced by its role in liberating millions, nay, billions from poverty and oppression. We may have a few mistakes to apologize for along the way, but our intentions and goals remain the very embodiment of decency, and are recognized as such by billions of folks around the world who look to us for hope, the opinion of Mr. Greenwald notwithstanding.

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    Schultzie, like the tiny-handed one,

    What's your obsession with Donald Trump's penis???

    can't go past the election because that would force him to look a the smoking wreckage his beloved is making of the presidency and the rule of law and America's reputation around the world.

    That's your assessment.. But it's the assessment of a person who is dining on sour grapes and massive amounts of crow...

    America is great again.. Jobs are up.. Illegal immigration is down.. And Lefties are crying and whining six ways from Sunday...

    What's not to love!!?? :D

    It's awesome!!!!

    Your constant references to the election are much like Humpty Trumpty's constant references to his (falsified) election numbers and (pathetic) inauguration turnout, only he gets to tell the lies, all you get to do is repeat them. Sad.

    ANd yet... ANd yet.. ANd yet...

    YOUR bitch lost and President Trump is doing great... :D

    Happy Days Are Here Again... :D

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    Sargent Schultz: "I KNOW NOTHING! I SEE NOTHING!"

    Descends to "bitch" again because he can't come up with an argument. Sad.

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Descends to "bitch" again because he can't come up with an argument. Sad.

    You descended to name-calling first..

    By your own standards, it's you who has no argument..

    Further, I don't *NEED* to come up with an argument..

    NOT-45 is a disgrace and MY chosen candidate is President..

    My argument.... and your LACK of argument... is self-evident... :D

    But we'll always have Weigantia... :D

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    And you STILL can't spell worth a damn.. :D

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Further, I don't *NEED* to come up with an argument..

    Well then, let me be of assistance. Can you explain:

    Why so many of Trump's associates, and Trump himself, have so many ties to Russia's oligarchy? It confounds logic that it's just a huge coincidence.

    If those meetings were innocent, why hide them at all? Jared had to be confronted with documents before he acknowledged that he'd 'neglected' to report meetings with Russians.

    Why refuse to provide even basic documents, like Tax returns, if there's nothing to hide?

    Why lie blatantly and constantly about shit, both insignificant (like crowd size) and weighty (like wiretaps)? Is it a form of tourettes?

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    Schultzie: You just keep making my point: "I Know NOTHING! I SEE nothing!"

    Ah well, that's the problem with know-nothing-see-nothingers.

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Why so many of Trump's associates, and Trump himself, have so many ties to Russia's oligarchy? It confounds logic that it's just a huge coincidence.

    There are just as many ties to Russia amongst Clinton and CLinton associates..

    Your Party bigotry proves my point for me..

    You don't CARE about those ties because you are enslaved by Party...

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Ah well, that's the problem with know-nothing-see-nothingers.

    Says the person who can't see how badly Donald Trump devastated NOT-45... :D

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [31],[33] - Comey just said he hopes there are tapes!

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    29

    "I said I would check back on occasion to see if sanity had returned to Weigantia..

    You claimed I broke a promise by returning, even though I CLEARLY conveyed exactly what I meant..

    You said you were leaving until sanity returned, but nobody who made the comparisons has changed their mind, yet you returned.

    That's as clear as mud.

    A

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    [55] Balthasar: Yep! God I want to see Comey on a rampage.

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    You said you were leaving until sanity returned, but nobody who made the comparisons has changed their mind, yet you returned.

    Did I say that it had to be someone who made the comparisons had to bring sanity back to Weigantia??

    No I did not. That was simply your perception..

    You were wrong... Get over it...

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There are just as many ties to Russia amongst Clinton and Clinton associates..

    assuming for a moment that's true..

    How many Clinton associates made trips to Russia during the campaign, as Trump advisor Carter Page did?

    How many Clinton associates have had to file after-the-fact as Foreign agents as Flynn had to?

    How many Clinton associates received millions in unreported income from Russians, as both Flynn and Manafort did?

    When was the last time Hillary had the Russians over and it looked like this?

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Plenty..

    Plenty...

    Plenty...

    But you don't care about that, because you only care when someone with a -R after their name has Russian contact...

    And you only care about Russian contact when you can use it as a blunt weapon against anyone with a -R after their name..

    The fact is, the Clintons are hip deep in Russian contacts..

    But you don't care...

  61. [61] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How may Clinton advisors lied to the public or to investigators about contacts with the Russians, as Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, Kushner, and Page did?

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    you only care about Russian contact when you can use it as a blunt weapon against anyone with a -R after their name..

    Well it was the Republicans who benefited from Russian meddling in the election. I should query the Order of Franciscans instead?

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Well it was the Republicans who benefited from Russian meddling in the election.

    Was it???

    Trump doesn't seem to be doing so good by Republicans, eh??

    Or, maybe you think that the Russian meddling caused Democrats to lose 1000 seats in less than 6 years???

    You see how completely ignorant and untenable your claim is??

    It's a fantasy, brought about by hysterical flailing trying to find ANY excuse to cover up reality..

    Patriotic Americans think that Democrats suck...

    That's why President Trump *STILL* not only wins the election but ALSO wins the Vanity Vote.. :D

    Your Democrats suck...

    These are the facts.. Get over it already...

  64. [64] 
    Paula wrote:

    [63] Sgt. Schultz: IOW, "I KNOW NOTHING! I SEE NOTHING!"

    [62] Balthasar: he literally can't do it. To admit a single thing will bring the whole edifice down. It will be nothing but dodgeball until 45 is brought down in disgrace, and then we will probably see denial turned up to 11.

  65. [65] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    46

    "Sure, Trump can meet with Kissinger"

    The issue was Hillary's support for Kissinger's right wing approach that proves the point Greenwald was making... why are you changing the subject to Trump?

    "The truth is, that American virtue speaks for itself, and is evidenced by its role in liberating millions, nay, billions from poverty and oppression. We may have a few mistakes to apologize for along the way, but our intentions and goals remain the very embodiment of decency, and are recognized as such by billions of folks around the world who look to us for hope, the opinion of Mr. Greenwald notwithstanding"

    Nice attempted straw man in there by changing the debate to include "poverty".

    Those "few mistakes include"

    Saudi Arabia
    Egypt
    Turkey
    Ukraine
    Honduras
    Guatamala
    Panama
    Mexico
    Colombia
    Argentina
    Chile
    Brazil
    Haiti
    Iraq
    Iran
    Libya
    Syria
    Jordan
    Palestine
    Yemen
    South Africa
    Namibia
    Tanzania
    Morocco
    Tunisia
    Somalia
    South Korea
    Vietnam
    Cambodia
    Laos
    Indonesia
    Philippines
    Myanmar
    Pakistan
    Afghanistan
    etc.
    etc.
    etc.

    The people in those countries know the history and do NOT "look to us for hope"... but do try to substantiate that claim. I'll wait.

    How is supporting military coups against democratically elected leaders comparable to "our intentions and goals remain the very embodiment of decency"?

    Who are the "billions" you include in our "liberation"?
    Cite them, and show your math.
    Are you counting those who liberated themselves despite our support for the coups that ended their democracies or our support for their oppressive autocrats/authoritarians/dictators/monarchs?

    Are you unaware of the true number of "mistakes"?
    World history?

    Do you support Rex Tillerson's recent statement at the State Department?-
    “In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our national security goals,” Tillerson said in a speech to State Department employees meant to outline to what “America First” means in diplomatic terms. “It really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.”

    That is the Realpolitik that both parties in our establishment duopoly have supported for decades.

    "the far left has never been comfortable with that."

    Nor the near left.
    And for good reason.
    But hey, neoliberals being perfectly comfortable praising the wonders of Kissinger is exactly the point of the article Greenwald wrote... yet, like I said already, you feel the need to both defend and deny it.

    A

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Patriotic Americans think that Democrats suck.

    Democrats ARE Patriotic Americans, and a lot of them don't see a lot of patriotism in the current administration, who would rather collude with Russians than bargain with Democrats. It isn't the least bit patriotic to let the air and water get polluted, to hand our children's education to mercenary corporations, or to force our sick and elderly to spend their savings on healthcare. Take the Right's faux patriotism and stick it where the flag don't wave.

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    58

    You just couldn't stay away, and the "principles" that caused your "outrage" and departure are now being set aside despite having been given as your justification for leaving.

    How could I have ever perceived that the wrong way?

    A

  68. [68] 
    Paula wrote:

    [66] Balthasar: Take the Right's faux patriotism and stick it where the flag don't wave.

    There isn't much room left there, what with the way Dumpfy has shoved the Constitution up the GOP's collective tush. That's why they're all walking around wincing with every step.

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al[65] - Nice attempted straw man in there by changing the debate to include "poverty".

    It never occurred to me that 'poverty' could be considered a straw man in a conversation that should be about Human Rights, not American foibles.

    All of the countries that you listed have had both good and bad experiences with America, and America has an equally checkered history with most of them.

    So what?

    The point of the Greenwald article was his presumption that embrace of dictators and abuse of other countries is 'central' to American foreign policy, to which I reply 'bullshit'.

    The fact that (until now) both Republican and Democratic leaders have been willing to make alliances with leaders whose policies we don't wholly support is neither endorsement of, nor necessarily helpful to those leaders. We act in America's best interests, and some of those interests include our own national security.

    As President Teddy noted, a soft voice and big stick are useful on the world stage in that instance.

    But go on with your false equivalences, carry buckets of water for much worse regimes, and by all means, never acknowledge America as the shining city on the hill that the rest of the world looks up to. Wouldn't want to burst your bubble.

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [68] Ow! :}

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    4

    i liked dwayne johnson as "the rock obama"

    Oh, JL, thanks! I love those SNL clips. I ended up watching 30 minutes of these "The Rock Obama" skits. :)

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    6

    Meyers didn't mince words in his closing argument, saying, "The bottom line is this: Republicans rushed this bill through for ideological reasons, despite the fact that every analysis shows it would cut taxes for the wealthy; raise premiums for older, sicker people; and kick millions off insurance."

    Change REPUBLICANS to DEMOCRATS and the statement is STILL dead on ballz accurate..

    So what's Meyer's point???

    Meyer's made his point while you flailed around and missed Meyer's point with your same old lame "false equivalency" BS argument.

    No, you can't simply change "REPUBLICANS to DEMOCRATS" and the statement is still accurate. Democrats didn't rush anything through because they spent well over a year working on their health care bill, months and months of revisions, amendments and debates, and simply spewing back the rhetoric you were spoon-fed from the right-wing propaganda machine doesn't make it true. Democrats didn't lower taxes on the rich either... exactly the opposite. I could go on, but facts don't seem to matter to you... just slapping that one size fits all false equivalency argument on nearly everything because it's infinitely easier to do than actually arguing the merits of a statement.

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    16

    "Prosecutorial Discretion" is just a politically correct way of saying Obstruction Of Justice....

    No, it isn't, but making a statement like that as if it's a fact is a really good way of showing you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. *LOL* :D

  74. [74] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] Kick:
    No, you can't simply change "REPUBLICANS to DEMOCRATS" and the statement is still accurate. Democrats didn't rush anything through because they spent well over a year working on their health care bill, months and months of revisions, amendments and debates, and simply spewing back the rhetoric you were spoon-fed from the right-wing propaganda machine doesn't make it true.

    I have said this before, but let me reiterate, Sgt. Schultz knows perfectly well that Dems didn't rush the ACA through because he and I were both commenting on this blog throughout that process. That looooong process. There was passionate debate, there was rage on my part when the Public Option wasn't included, etc. Whatever one thinks about the ACA, any statement to the effect that it was "pushed through" is abject bullshit, and Schultzie knows it. He was there.

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    Piece by Charles Syke sums up the Trumpies:

    Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to:
    (1) the biased “fake news” media,
    (2) over-the-top liberals,
    (3) hypocrites on the left,
    (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and
    (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/if-liberals-hate-him-then-trump-must-be-doing-something-right/ar-BBB3YLm?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

    He goes on:

    What may have begun as a policy or a tactic in opposition has long since become a reflex. But there is an obvious price to be paid for essentially becoming a party devoted to trolling. In the long run, it’s hard to see how a party dedicated to liberal tears can remain a movement based on ideas or centered on principles.

    Conservatives will care less about governing and more about scoring “wins” — and inflicting losses on the left — no matter how hollow the victories or flawed the policies. Ultimately, though, this will end badly because it is a moral and intellectual dead end, and very likely a political one as well.

    My only disagreement: "it's hard to see how…can remain a movement based on ideas or centered on principles" -- that ship has sailed.

  76. [76] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [10]

    Loved that! Put a huge smile on my face.

    And stop with the "Patriotic" bullshat! The moment you start up with that you're basically announcing that your position isn't strong enough to stand on its own without the need of insults.

    -Russ

  77. [77] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [75],

    Great article!

    -R

  78. [78] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Great article from Charlie Sykes, Paula. Charlie answers questions we've been asking all day: why keep bringing up Hillary [43]? Why does the response usually default to 'democrats are party slaves'[7] or simply, 'democrats suck'[63]?

    According to Charlie, it's elementary: that's all they've got, kiddo.

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    [78] that's all they've got, kiddo.

    Yep!

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    75

    Great article by Charlie Sykes and so very true; he's living proof that not everyone who votes Republican has completely shut down to reality and fallen victim to the affliction of deflection.

    It's sad how the so-called GOP that used to refer to itself as the "party of personal responsibility" has now become the party of deflectors and blamers and enablers. They can't really defend the con artist they were dumb enough to vote into office so they deflect, blame, and scream "fake news." They actually thought the con artist was going to be their "champion," but he turned out to be President Pathological Whiny Little Bitch in Chief.

    Trump hasn't become their champion, but they sure have become Trump's whiny little bitches... falling and crawling into their safe spaces because they can't defend him.

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    the rock obama was great, right? for that matter, so was chevy chase as gerald ford! did you try the ford-carter debate link? notwithstanding a few words we would no longer use, it's quite amazing how much of that stuff still holds up today.

    JL

  82. [82] 
    Paula wrote:

    [80] Kick:
    Trump hasn't become their champion, but they sure have become Trump's whiny little bitches... falling and crawling into their safe spaces because they can't defend him.

    Yep.

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    81

    the rock obama was great, right? for that matter, so was chevy chase as gerald ford! did you try the ford-carter debate link? notwithstanding a few words we would no longer use, it's quite amazing how much of that stuff still holds up today.

    I loved The Rock Obama so much; I had forgotten how much until I watched your link. From there I discovered another link and another link, and just kept watching and laughing. :)

    I tried to watch the 2 other links from SNL earlier, but I got a screen with a frowny face saying: "The uploader has not made this video available in your country. Sorry about that." I love Chevy so I need to find a working link and make me a margarita in my Wally World Mug and watch it! :)

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    i know it's on vimeo and hulu as well, maybe one of those will work. or just google 1976 debate snl and switch the filter to 'videos' and click links til one works... amazing how even back then they were discussing many of the same issues we do today.

    JL

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    84

    Oh, thank you; I will check those out later today.

    Hey, JL, guess who is hosting SNL this coming Saturday. It's none other than The Rock. I hereby demand a skit where Alec Baldwin as Trump opens a door in the Oval Office, and there stands Obama getting mad as hell and turns into The Rock Obama.

    Make it happen SNL! :)

Comments for this article are closed.