> SINCE 2021, PARTY LEADERS GASLIT THEIR OWN VOTERS ABOUT BIDEN.
Since 2019 at the very least. People have been noticing that Biden's brain isn't braining properly since Julián Castro called him on it in the Democratic primary debates, which immediately sent the establishment into a freakout. "Don't say that!" they screamed, "or the Republicans might hear!"
> Harry Truman, whom I mostly respect, seems to have originated this blood libel. He pasted the “Nazi” label on Tom Dewey—the mild-mannered liberal Republican whose greatest legacy was recruiting Dwight Eisenhower to run as a Republican in 1952. Truman (who tried recruiting Eisenhower to run as a Democrat) called Dewey a Nazi when the ovens at Auschwitz had barely cooled.
Also, it's worth noting that Dewey made some significant achievements in his career as a prosecutor by successfully going after Nazis and Nazi agents in America. This just shows that the Democrat penchant for turning reality on its head when they make accusations against their opponents is nothing new.
"Also, it's worth noting that Dewey made some significant achievements in his career as a prosecutor by successfully going after Nazis and Nazi agents in America."
Hadn't heard that before. Who were the Nazis he convicted?
Thanks for the reminders. ... ... I had forgotten about the Castro freakout: Shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiFuhLJ0Fq0. Described here: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/castro-questioned-bidens-memory-1494495. Aftermath here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/democrats-debate-push-back-julian-castro-attacks-joe-biden/index.html. ... ... I had also forgotten Dewey's assaults on the German-American Bund after Madison Square Garden. With FDR's approval, he went after Fritz Julius Kuhn in 1939, depriving American Nazis of their fundraising and their chief rabble-rouser. The fascinating thing there is that Dewey was briefly considered the front-runner for the 1940 presidential nomination, even though he was merely the New York City District Attorney. That's how nationally celebrated he was as a crime-fighter. Willkie took the nomination, and by the time Dewey was nominated in 1944, he had risen to the governorship.
I suspect that just like after the 2016 election of President Trump, the Democrats will not look inward at all. Last Sunday our minister introduced us to Howard Thurman. There was a quote that I thought might apply here. I humbly submit it here.
"The penalty of deception is to become a deception, with all sense of moral discrimination vitiated. A man who lies habitually becomes a lie, and it is increasingly impossible for him to know when he is lying and when he is not.”
There are two schools of thought regarding Shapiro. The first is that he would be a drag in Michigan. The second is he declined. Both could be correct. He may have told the party leaders that for the good of the party he would take a pass this year when actually it would be for the good of the Governor.
I think it is quite simple. The pot has been boiling for a change away from progressive left, identity politics, DEI etc, and Dems provided the candidate to allow all to boil over in what is an apparent landslide victory for Trump and Republicans. Might have been avoidable with a better Dem candidate, but if such a candidate continued the pursuit of far left progressive policies, change would happen in 2028.
Now all have to hope common sense thinking will be not only at the highest levels of government, but at state and local levels, too.
A devastating, and accurate, post mortem. One wonders if anyone is listening, or do we face four more years of knee jerk Trump Derangement Syndrome? I fear the latter …
TDS is indeed a disorder which should be catalogued in any respectable psychology manual. Yesterday I happened to see a post on this site which stated "Fascism has come to America, and as predicted, it is wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross". I decided to glance at a few of the comments. I had to wonder if they were legitimate. These people need help.
Excellent analysis. But I missed the part where you made a recommendation that would solve all our nation's social, economic, or political problems. Maybe you can do that next week?
The good news is that average American voters were not taken in by the Democratic party, or the legacy media telling readers/viewers how to think. There's a lot to be said for letting people judge how to decide who should lead them into difficult times.
Finally, about that DEI thing. Can we just put it behind us? Was there ever a better example of the failure of "Didn't Earn It" than yesterday's election? Equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome -- that's what we used to believe in. Can we get back to that?
They could always run Elena Kagan. In 1916, the Republicans plucked Charles Evans Hughes off of the Supreme Court to run him. Kagan has gravitas. She was Deputy Director of of Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Council. Dean of Law at Harvard for six years, where she excelled at attracting talent and raising money. Solicitor General of the U.S. for one year. Fourteen years on the Supreme Court, and the heaviest hitter on that side of the Court. No idea how she'd do at retail politics, but I'd bet a substantial pile of money and give steep odds that she'd do far better than Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris.
Hughes came very close to sparing us an extra four years of the horror of Woodrow Wilson. He went on to serve as Secretary of State before returning to the Court as Chief Justice.
Hillary was a “woman of substance”. Intelligent for sure (far above Harris and Walz).
But she was disagreeable, unlikeable (despite Obama telling her “you’re likeable enough, Hillary” at a 2007 debate), a bad liar and not a very good politician.
Oh and arrogantly broke a number of laws.
But she did have substance. Unlike Kamala.
It *would* help Dems to nominate a woman who didn’t drip contempt at half the country, though…
I hope your Substack gets an increasingly wide readership. You insightfulness, unique perspective, and writing ability deserve wide exposure. You have articulated my feelings/beliefs/opinions about Harris and Trump perfectly. I read you and say to myself, "Gee, I wish I had written that."
I have never felt as personally insulted by a political campaign as by the Harris-Walz campaign. I tend to be an anarchist/libertarian and Harris supporters, particularly ignorant (in the true sense of not knowing much) women under the age of 25, insulting my knowledge and views led me to break a personal practice of long standing and vote for Trump, who I don't much care for, in a state he was going to win easily, just because I got sick of it.
Yep. Never thought I would vote for Trump until a few months ago. Libertarian was the obvious choice. But I'm in Arizona and there was a tiny extra chance that my vote would count (yes, keep telling yourself that) and Harris and the Democrats and all they represent would be dreadful. So, contrary to 90+% of my Facebook "friends", I voted Trump/Republican.
Don't disappoint me, Trump. Chill out about the tariffs. Focus on deregulation and abolish a bunch of federal agencies. Become close friends with Milei. He can help you. And you can probably help him.
Oops, sorry. Back to the point: This was a brilliant piece. Even more than usual.
Thanks so much! A number of people are pointing to Milei as a good model for Trump 47. In an especially thought-provoking column (https://instapundit.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-post-election), Glenn Reynolds (@instapundit) writes: "Like airplanes on a runway. Trump’s approach this time around should be what he should have done last time: Shock and awe. Shut down departments, fire bureaucrats, exercise emergency powers, all so fast that the establishment’s responses are saturated. Javier Millei’s whirlwind assault in Argentina should be the model, sometimes in specifics but also in general approach. Bureaucrats move slowly; Trump should move fast. ... Elon Musk says he can cut $2 trillion easily; do it. Also, set bureaucrats competing with each other for what funds remain. Divide and conquer."
I read a few of them, and was disappointed. They lay out why various departments and agencies should be abolished, but without any discussion of how, or links to such proposals. You can't just abolish SSA, for instance. Legally it's possible, but without some kind of transition proposal, the article seemed more like a formulaic rant than anything useful. I agree, get rid of the Fed; but how would it transition? I agree, get rid of the army; the US is extremely unlikely to be invaded beyond what the unorganized militia could handle; but please, discuss how you'd untangle all those treaties and commitments.
Unfortunately, the GOP base is grounded in evangelical Christian orthodoxy which encourages government regulation of morality. Right to die, or cryopreserve, may run afoul of their beliefs. Not to mention an utter lack of concern for long term societal problems because God.
I too was insulted by the nature of the Harris-Walz campaign, and even more by the speech she gave (25 minutes after the appointed hour) the next day at Howard University. Fingernails on a chalk board!
I've been feeling for a while that the Dems were being ill-served by their dependency on a complicit, supine media class—it was like having a kid do all your homework in HS but then you have to take the Finals on your own. As stated in the piece, you lose all your thinking and debating muscles if you never have to use them.
The Dems have also been very ill-served by letting Left academia do their thinking for them—not only do the ideas of the Academy wither quickly once they escape their hothouses and touch reality (who could have guessed that open the jails, open the borders, smash the sex binary and denounce the Constitution had limited appeal!?) but if there's one ugly habit liberals have picked up from their professoriate it's the postmodern Academy's one-weird trick: everyone who doesn't agree with us is some species of bigot or fascist—Adorno strikes again!
But going by what my friends in the Blue Bubble are saying today, it's simply impossible to wean them off the bigotry accusations and their disdain for their benighted political opponents. They all still believe that the empty vessel Kamala only lost because of race hate and sex hate—and as "conservatives are either Nazis or Klansmen" is the foundation of both their politics and their entire worldviews, I think they'll take these beliefs to the grave.
I think of Britain's Labour Party in the 1990s. After years of failure in the far leftward reaches, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown swept in with the centrist New Labour, discarded Old Labour's Marxian tendencies, and had a successful 13-year run of governance. Bill Clinton did similarly after 20 years of leftward tendencies among Democrats.
I don't know much about Britain in the 90s, but I do remember when the Man from Hope arrived on the scene 30ish yrs ago, and I think the big difference is that back then politics was not so totalizing and theological and the Left did not have nearly the same amount of institutional power. Bill had to piss off and double-cross some unions, but unions had mostly destroyed their reputations at that point and were mostly known for Hoffa-style corruption.
I guess my main question for the Dems (and America) now is: How do you solve a problem like Social Justice? Social Justice is still the ideology of America's cultural and educational elites and still controls the Ivy League, Hollywood, much of Silicon Valley and still burns hot in the hearts of their most devoted donors, activists and true believers.
It will take a politician with intense strength and charisma to withstand the avalanche of bigotry accusations and cries of harm! (think of the Trans children!) to bring Social Justice to heel and to convince the denizens of the Blue Bubble to break bread with their political opponents when what they most desire is their reeducation and/or eradication.
Wonderful essay Robert. And a well made point here:
“I excluded Gretchen Whitmer and Pete Buttigieg because of the former’s Dorito mocking of Catholic ritual and the latter’s Olympic-level ineptitude as Transportation Secretary.”
When I saw the Whitmer “chip” video mocking communion, I was not terribly surprised by the message (and this point I’m a bit used to it - see generally Mrs. Harris’ interrogation of Catholic judicial nominees when she was Senator Harris).
What surprised me was how Ms. Whitmer looked very unsure if she should be doing that little skit in front of someone with a running camera…..
One wonders. Insulting, and not even clever, or close to funny.
Yes. Senator Kamala Harris seemed to see membership in the Knights of Columbus as a disqualifying factor for judicial nominees--and she wasn't alone in that. After publishing this article yesterday, I added in a new line: "I suggested to a highly placed Catholic friend that the elect-me-because-I’m-a-woman plea that Harris sent to the Al Smith Dinner ought to be referred to as her 'Agnus DEI' video."
And yes, Whitmer did appear to be resisting her saner impulses in that video. I suspect she regrets it. In its aftermath, her handlers denied that she was mocking Catholicism and suggested that it was merely a satire on bondage and dominance porn videos. I'm not sure that explanation helped.
As the kids say, "no lies detected." In each of the past three cycles I voted for people other than Trump in the primary. And I would have, maybe a bit reluctantly, voted for the Democratic candidate in the general election, had s/he been superior in any way. They never were.
The once-great Jonah Goldberg wrote something in 2016 that has remained true, to the effect of "Voting for Trump is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver. Voting for [his opponent] is like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic."
Bill Barr said this year that voting for Trump was like playing Russian roulette with the country's future, while voting for Biden was outright suicide.
Brilliant, as always
Thanks!
Incisive observations, clearly put, typical Bastiat's Window.
> SINCE 2021, PARTY LEADERS GASLIT THEIR OWN VOTERS ABOUT BIDEN.
Since 2019 at the very least. People have been noticing that Biden's brain isn't braining properly since Julián Castro called him on it in the Democratic primary debates, which immediately sent the establishment into a freakout. "Don't say that!" they screamed, "or the Republicans might hear!"
> Harry Truman, whom I mostly respect, seems to have originated this blood libel. He pasted the “Nazi” label on Tom Dewey—the mild-mannered liberal Republican whose greatest legacy was recruiting Dwight Eisenhower to run as a Republican in 1952. Truman (who tried recruiting Eisenhower to run as a Democrat) called Dewey a Nazi when the ovens at Auschwitz had barely cooled.
Also, it's worth noting that Dewey made some significant achievements in his career as a prosecutor by successfully going after Nazis and Nazi agents in America. This just shows that the Democrat penchant for turning reality on its head when they make accusations against their opponents is nothing new.
"Also, it's worth noting that Dewey made some significant achievements in his career as a prosecutor by successfully going after Nazis and Nazi agents in America."
Hadn't heard that before. Who were the Nazis he convicted?
See my note above. Fritz Julius Kuhn, leader of the German-American Bund and organizer of the recently infamous Madison Square Garden rally.
Thanks for the reminders. ... ... I had forgotten about the Castro freakout: Shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiFuhLJ0Fq0. Described here: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/castro-questioned-bidens-memory-1494495. Aftermath here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/democrats-debate-push-back-julian-castro-attacks-joe-biden/index.html. ... ... I had also forgotten Dewey's assaults on the German-American Bund after Madison Square Garden. With FDR's approval, he went after Fritz Julius Kuhn in 1939, depriving American Nazis of their fundraising and their chief rabble-rouser. The fascinating thing there is that Dewey was briefly considered the front-runner for the 1940 presidential nomination, even though he was merely the New York City District Attorney. That's how nationally celebrated he was as a crime-fighter. Willkie took the nomination, and by the time Dewey was nominated in 1944, he had risen to the governorship.
I suspect that just like after the 2016 election of President Trump, the Democrats will not look inward at all. Last Sunday our minister introduced us to Howard Thurman. There was a quote that I thought might apply here. I humbly submit it here.
"The penalty of deception is to become a deception, with all sense of moral discrimination vitiated. A man who lies habitually becomes a lie, and it is increasingly impossible for him to know when he is lying and when he is not.”
― Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited
Wonderful quote.
I don’t know the true reason for the Walz pick, but whatever it is, Democrats owe a gigantic apology to Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin.
What a great observation!
Thanks! I hope the two of them are taking some satisfaction today.
There are two schools of thought regarding Shapiro. The first is that he would be a drag in Michigan. The second is he declined. Both could be correct. He may have told the party leaders that for the good of the party he would take a pass this year when actually it would be for the good of the Governor.
Another story says Pelosi vetoed him and insisted upon her former House colleague, Walz. Who knows? :)
I think it is quite simple. The pot has been boiling for a change away from progressive left, identity politics, DEI etc, and Dems provided the candidate to allow all to boil over in what is an apparent landslide victory for Trump and Republicans. Might have been avoidable with a better Dem candidate, but if such a candidate continued the pursuit of far left progressive policies, change would happen in 2028.
Now all have to hope common sense thinking will be not only at the highest levels of government, but at state and local levels, too.
A devastating, and accurate, post mortem. One wonders if anyone is listening, or do we face four more years of knee jerk Trump Derangement Syndrome? I fear the latter …
'Twill be interesting, won't it?
TDS is indeed a disorder which should be catalogued in any respectable psychology manual. Yesterday I happened to see a post on this site which stated "Fascism has come to America, and as predicted, it is wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross". I decided to glance at a few of the comments. I had to wonder if they were legitimate. These people need help.
I posted this earlier in a different forum:
Some suggestions for the Democrats:
Don’t lie to the nation.
We’re not as stupid as you seem to think.
You’re not as smart as you seem to think.
Oh, and if the word “Democratic” is part of your name, maybe next time try practicing a little bit of it.
Very acute. Can't believe I only now signed up for a paid subscription. Your essays are always so interesting.
Thank you so very much! For the tip jar contribution and for the compliments.
Excellent analysis. But I missed the part where you made a recommendation that would solve all our nation's social, economic, or political problems. Maybe you can do that next week?
The good news is that average American voters were not taken in by the Democratic party, or the legacy media telling readers/viewers how to think. There's a lot to be said for letting people judge how to decide who should lead them into difficult times.
Finally, about that DEI thing. Can we just put it behind us? Was there ever a better example of the failure of "Didn't Earn It" than yesterday's election? Equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome -- that's what we used to believe in. Can we get back to that?
No, we can’t. It’s entangled in our laws. They must be reformed.
Unfortunately, we won’t. The Dems’ own identities are too tied up in it.
I agree with Tyler Cowen that we’ve likely hit Peak Woke.
But I strongly suspect it will not be anything like a sharp reversal, but instead a very gently declining plateau.
Surely in academia in any case.
There's always Hemingway's "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
Yes. Do you want your heart surgeon, airline pilot, or firefighter chosen the same way that Harris was?
If Democrats want a woman president then they need to present "a woman of substance". Trouble is, they don't seem to have any.
They could always run Elena Kagan. In 1916, the Republicans plucked Charles Evans Hughes off of the Supreme Court to run him. Kagan has gravitas. She was Deputy Director of of Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Council. Dean of Law at Harvard for six years, where she excelled at attracting talent and raising money. Solicitor General of the U.S. for one year. Fourteen years on the Supreme Court, and the heaviest hitter on that side of the Court. No idea how she'd do at retail politics, but I'd bet a substantial pile of money and give steep odds that she'd do far better than Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris.
Hughes came very close to sparing us an extra four years of the horror of Woodrow Wilson. He went on to serve as Secretary of State before returning to the Court as Chief Justice.
I don’t entirely agree.
Hillary was a “woman of substance”. Intelligent for sure (far above Harris and Walz).
But she was disagreeable, unlikeable (despite Obama telling her “you’re likeable enough, Hillary” at a 2007 debate), a bad liar and not a very good politician.
Oh and arrogantly broke a number of laws.
But she did have substance. Unlike Kamala.
It *would* help Dems to nominate a woman who didn’t drip contempt at half the country, though…
Bob,
I hope your Substack gets an increasingly wide readership. You insightfulness, unique perspective, and writing ability deserve wide exposure. You have articulated my feelings/beliefs/opinions about Harris and Trump perfectly. I read you and say to myself, "Gee, I wish I had written that."
Rick
Thanks Rick! Appreciated, as always. Spread the word. :)
Magnifique! Superb!
I have never felt as personally insulted by a political campaign as by the Harris-Walz campaign. I tend to be an anarchist/libertarian and Harris supporters, particularly ignorant (in the true sense of not knowing much) women under the age of 25, insulting my knowledge and views led me to break a personal practice of long standing and vote for Trump, who I don't much care for, in a state he was going to win easily, just because I got sick of it.
Jorg, judging from the angst I’m seeing, I’d raise the age to women 30 and younger. Believe me, I’m not happy saying that.
It applied to unmarried women age 59 and under - at least in my experience.
Yep. Never thought I would vote for Trump until a few months ago. Libertarian was the obvious choice. But I'm in Arizona and there was a tiny extra chance that my vote would count (yes, keep telling yourself that) and Harris and the Democrats and all they represent would be dreadful. So, contrary to 90+% of my Facebook "friends", I voted Trump/Republican.
Don't disappoint me, Trump. Chill out about the tariffs. Focus on deregulation and abolish a bunch of federal agencies. Become close friends with Milei. He can help you. And you can probably help him.
Oops, sorry. Back to the point: This was a brilliant piece. Even more than usual.
Thanks so much! A number of people are pointing to Milei as a good model for Trump 47. In an especially thought-provoking column (https://instapundit.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-post-election), Glenn Reynolds (@instapundit) writes: "Like airplanes on a runway. Trump’s approach this time around should be what he should have done last time: Shock and awe. Shut down departments, fire bureaucrats, exercise emergency powers, all so fast that the establishment’s responses are saturated. Javier Millei’s whirlwind assault in Argentina should be the model, sometimes in specifics but also in general approach. Bureaucrats move slowly; Trump should move fast. ... Elon Musk says he can cut $2 trillion easily; do it. Also, set bureaucrats competing with each other for what funds remain. Divide and conquer."
Shock and awe! The new issue of Reason magazine has the theme: Abolish everything.
I read a few of them, and was disappointed. They lay out why various departments and agencies should be abolished, but without any discussion of how, or links to such proposals. You can't just abolish SSA, for instance. Legally it's possible, but without some kind of transition proposal, the article seemed more like a formulaic rant than anything useful. I agree, get rid of the Fed; but how would it transition? I agree, get rid of the army; the US is extremely unlikely to be invaded beyond what the unorganized militia could handle; but please, discuss how you'd untangle all those treaties and commitments.
Unfortunately, the GOP base is grounded in evangelical Christian orthodoxy which encourages government regulation of morality. Right to die, or cryopreserve, may run afoul of their beliefs. Not to mention an utter lack of concern for long term societal problems because God.
And, Trump is a demagogue, so there’s that.
Oh well. 🤷♀️
I too was insulted by the nature of the Harris-Walz campaign, and even more by the speech she gave (25 minutes after the appointed hour) the next day at Howard University. Fingernails on a chalk board!
I don't believe she mentioned or even alluded to Biden.
Great piece! Hits every note perfectly.
I've been feeling for a while that the Dems were being ill-served by their dependency on a complicit, supine media class—it was like having a kid do all your homework in HS but then you have to take the Finals on your own. As stated in the piece, you lose all your thinking and debating muscles if you never have to use them.
The Dems have also been very ill-served by letting Left academia do their thinking for them—not only do the ideas of the Academy wither quickly once they escape their hothouses and touch reality (who could have guessed that open the jails, open the borders, smash the sex binary and denounce the Constitution had limited appeal!?) but if there's one ugly habit liberals have picked up from their professoriate it's the postmodern Academy's one-weird trick: everyone who doesn't agree with us is some species of bigot or fascist—Adorno strikes again!
But going by what my friends in the Blue Bubble are saying today, it's simply impossible to wean them off the bigotry accusations and their disdain for their benighted political opponents. They all still believe that the empty vessel Kamala only lost because of race hate and sex hate—and as "conservatives are either Nazis or Klansmen" is the foundation of both their politics and their entire worldviews, I think they'll take these beliefs to the grave.
I am 100% with you.
And while I think they are wrong, I can at least *understand* them trying to make the argument about sex.
But the one about race is in 2024 beyond over the top, with less than zero justification.
I think of Britain's Labour Party in the 1990s. After years of failure in the far leftward reaches, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown swept in with the centrist New Labour, discarded Old Labour's Marxian tendencies, and had a successful 13-year run of governance. Bill Clinton did similarly after 20 years of leftward tendencies among Democrats.
I don't know much about Britain in the 90s, but I do remember when the Man from Hope arrived on the scene 30ish yrs ago, and I think the big difference is that back then politics was not so totalizing and theological and the Left did not have nearly the same amount of institutional power. Bill had to piss off and double-cross some unions, but unions had mostly destroyed their reputations at that point and were mostly known for Hoffa-style corruption.
I guess my main question for the Dems (and America) now is: How do you solve a problem like Social Justice? Social Justice is still the ideology of America's cultural and educational elites and still controls the Ivy League, Hollywood, much of Silicon Valley and still burns hot in the hearts of their most devoted donors, activists and true believers.
It will take a politician with intense strength and charisma to withstand the avalanche of bigotry accusations and cries of harm! (think of the Trans children!) to bring Social Justice to heel and to convince the denizens of the Blue Bubble to break bread with their political opponents when what they most desire is their reeducation and/or eradication.
Wonderful essay Robert. And a well made point here:
“I excluded Gretchen Whitmer and Pete Buttigieg because of the former’s Dorito mocking of Catholic ritual and the latter’s Olympic-level ineptitude as Transportation Secretary.”
When I saw the Whitmer “chip” video mocking communion, I was not terribly surprised by the message (and this point I’m a bit used to it - see generally Mrs. Harris’ interrogation of Catholic judicial nominees when she was Senator Harris).
What surprised me was how Ms. Whitmer looked very unsure if she should be doing that little skit in front of someone with a running camera…..
One wonders. Insulting, and not even clever, or close to funny.
Cheers, thanks for a good read.
Yes. Senator Kamala Harris seemed to see membership in the Knights of Columbus as a disqualifying factor for judicial nominees--and she wasn't alone in that. After publishing this article yesterday, I added in a new line: "I suggested to a highly placed Catholic friend that the elect-me-because-I’m-a-woman plea that Harris sent to the Al Smith Dinner ought to be referred to as her 'Agnus DEI' video."
And yes, Whitmer did appear to be resisting her saner impulses in that video. I suspect she regrets it. In its aftermath, her handlers denied that she was mocking Catholicism and suggested that it was merely a satire on bondage and dominance porn videos. I'm not sure that explanation helped.
Agreed. Not sure that explanation helps at all.
“I'm not sure that explanation helped.”
Idk. In 2024 It’s likely a lot less worse to the average non-hardcore atheist imo.
And to me at least it’s at least slightly more believable than “I didn’t inhale”…
As the kids say, "no lies detected." In each of the past three cycles I voted for people other than Trump in the primary. And I would have, maybe a bit reluctantly, voted for the Democratic candidate in the general election, had s/he been superior in any way. They never were.
The once-great Jonah Goldberg wrote something in 2016 that has remained true, to the effect of "Voting for Trump is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver. Voting for [his opponent] is like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic."
Bill Barr said this year that voting for Trump was like playing Russian roulette with the country's future, while voting for Biden was outright suicide.