Wow, we haven't gotten together for one of these since early August, when summer was still summering along. That's primarily because everything coming from the Democrats and their flying monkeys in the mainstream media is a TDS meltdown, and it's often difficult to pick just one to write about.
I'll be more on top of it now that we're in the closing weeks of the 400-year-long election cycle.
Today we return to the ongoing nervous breakdown known as the New York Times Editorial Board. The members of the board hold the distinction of collectively being Patient Zero for Trump Derangement Syndrome back in the day. Some historians insist that the distinction belongs to the founders of the Lincoln Project, but trust me, it was the NYT Editorial Board loony bin.
On Thursday, the board published an editorial titled, "The Dangers of Donald Trump, From Those Who Know Him."
So much for toning down the rhetoric in the wake of two assassination attempts.
Here is the introduction to this tantrum:
In any election, it’s hard to know whose word to trust. And in a polarized country, many Americans distrust any information that comes from the other side of the political divide. That’s why the criticism of Donald Trump by those who served with him in the White House and by members of his own party is so striking. Dozens of people who know him well, including the 91 listed here, have raised alarms about his character and fitness for office — his family and friends, world leaders and business associates, his fellow conservatives and his political appointees — even though they had nothing to gain from doing so. Some have even spoken out at the expense of their own careers or political interests.
The New York Times editorial board has made its case that Mr. Trump is unfit to lead. But the strongest case against him may come from his own people. For those Americans who are still tempted to return him to the presidency or to not vote in November, it is worth considering the assessment of Mr. Trump by those who have seen him up close.
I know that's long, but it was necessary for context.
What follows in the article are the quotes divided into different categories. Each quote is offered next to a tiny thumbnail portrait of the TDS sufferer responsible for it. Clicking the quote expands it to reveal the details of when and where it was spoken. The Times spared no expense in the presentation, even though it's all rehashed material. More on that later.
First, I would like to address "Some have even spoken out at the expense of their own careers or political interests."
None of the words that I want to use to respond to that are suitable for a family-friendly site. Put mildly, this is a load of horse manure that would need — at a minimum — a five-mile-long freight train to haul it.
Unless you want to work for Trump, there is no downside whatsoever to badmouthing him in American political circles. The heavy implication there is that any of the Republicans on the list were taking great risks. In reality, there is a lot of money in being a Republican who publicly bashes Trump.
Again, there is nothing new here. The editorial is merely a compilation of quotes from Trump haters that the Times has published over the years. It reaches as far back as the Republican primary debates in the 2016 race, quoting then opponents who have long since made their peace with Trump. In fact, a number of the people quoted have come around to the fact that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are the real existential threat to the Republic and are softly supporting Trump this year.
Given Madame Veep's ignominious exit from the 2020 Democratic primary race, it would probably be easy to dig up negative quotes about her from that contest.
The Times continues to insist that the candidate in this election who already has a successful track record as president and continues to provide detailed policy positions is "unfit to lead."
They're all-in on the cackling village idiot who can't answer a question. The Times even admits that she's vague and substance-free. This is from a Times article on Wednesday about Harris's interview the night before:
As Vice President Kamala Harris parses out the details of her agenda, she has favored broad strokes over detailed policy papers. Only recently has she begun sitting for interviews, which have elicited few details about what her presidential administration might look like.
Little about that careful approach changed during a 25-minute interview with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC that was broadcast on Wednesday night. It was Ms. Harris’s first one-on-one interview on cable television since becoming the Democratic nominee.
The author is being generous there. Cotton candy has more depth and gravitas than Kamala Harris's platform, such as it is.
But hey, fit to lead or something.
This regurgitation of anti-Trump feelings should have been titled, "GUYS... WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO US?!?" and been accompanied by a coupon to get a discount on tissues and adult diapers. It will be lapped up by the people who already hate Trump, but it's a flimsy pitch to anyone out there who is still undecided.
The Times Editorial Board is the ugly mean girl at the dance who's mad that the cute boy still won't notice her.
With any luck, she'll be going home alone on Election Night.
No comments:
Post a Comment