I’m a bit surprised that so many even-the-liberals (who can use usually be counted on to agree that W is a good man or whatever) are turning forcefully against both sides do it.
Here’s E. J. Dionne, on a break from agreeing with his good friend David on the Snooze Hour, noticing that “the coverage of Trump and Clinton does suggest that a media exquisitely sensitive to conservative criticism now overcompensates against the other side.” Here’s Nick Kristof, on a break from chasing sex workers, observing that faux fairness is normalizing Trump.
The often excessively mild-mannered Kevin Trump Drum puts it quite well:
I don’t think I can count the number of reporters who have investigated the Clinton Foundation or the number of pieces they’ve written. The net result has been (a) no actual serious misconduct uncovered, but (b) a steady drumbeat of stories implying that something improper was going on.
Now then: how many reporters have been investigating the Trump Foundation? I might be missing someone, but basically the answer is one: David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post. The net result has been (a) plenty of actual misconduct uncovered, but (b) very little in the way of public attention to it.
This is why so many people can somehow believe that Hillary Clinton is less trustworthy than Donald Trump. In truth, it’s not even close. Trump is probably the world champion in the sport of lying; he cares about nothing but enriching himself and getting even with his enemies; and his political positions change with the wind. He’s just about the least trustworthy person on the planet.
AliceBlue
Brass in Pocket indeed!
Laertes
Kevin Trump is the black sheep of the family, the troublemaking eldest son who hasn’t participated in his father’s campaign.
Cathie from Canada
I think the last quote is from Kevin Drum.
Doug!
@Laertes:
Sorry!
JMG
Nate Silver has defensive responses to critics before they even say anything. Just tweeted “Last week had a LOT of bad polls for Clinton. This week polls are better but there are less of them.” Uh, Nate, today is Tuesday. Week just started. Poor guy is so gunshy, I’ll bet his final forecast is 50-50 no matter what the polls say. After Trump got the nomination despite Silver’s assertion it could never happen, I’ll bet ESPN told him. “We threw Bill Simmons out, and we can do the same to you.”
RaflW
Yeah, and here’s a fucking newsflash, newspaper people: The conservatives that have made you “exquisitely sensitive to criticism” don’t buy your papers or click on your advertisers.
Good on Dionne to notice. And to his defence, before I gave up on the SnoozeHour, I thought Dionne, when he subs in*, did a much better job of picking apart Brooks than that walking cartoon character Shields (anyone here old enough to remember the comic strip ‘Shoe’? Mark to a T)
*Dionne tends to do NPR w/ Brooks. Shields is the rumpled old patsy for PBS.
dww44
@Laertes: I Love this!
SFAW
@RaflW:
One of the great strips. It wasn’t Pogo or Doonesbury, perhaps, but still damn good. I miss Jeff MacNelly
Major Major Major Major
Drum isn’t really one of the both-siders, though. He might be mild-mannered but he’s quite partisan.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Laertes: @dww44: There’s an internet series to be made about Kevin Trump, kinda like Sam Seder’s movie, The Bad Situationist, which I haven’t seen but Seder plays Joe Lieberman’s long-lost renegade son, Arthur
EJ Dionne is often too nice for my taste, but in general he’s on the right side of most arguments, I’ll save my venom for phony liberals like Richard Cohen.
SenyorDave
Does anyone know whether the campaigns would do some of the investigation work? IOW, would the Clinton campaign have internal investigations of the Trump Foundation. Because it sounds like the fact that Trump is basically stealing from his own charity would be pretty useful to use in a campaign ad. I know the NYT might get around to investigating it sometime after Inauguration Day.
Turgidson
@RaflW:
The problem is that both of them assume good faith on David f’n Brooks’ part. And Brooks doesn’t offer the same to them. It’s subtle because they speak in such dulcet tones and all, but I noticed over time that Shields and Dionne will both say, quite frequently, that they agree with at least part of what Brooks just said or volunteer that he made a good point about something. Brooks almost never reciprocates, unless it’s on a point so blindingly obvious that even he can see it through his humble Burkean bifocals.
Maybe that’s changed in the face of the Trumpocalypse – I haven’t caught the Snooze Hour or listened to Brooks on NPR lately – but it used to be a staple of Brooks’ strategy to basically play an extremely polite and soft-spoken Hannity on those shows.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
EJ is an old school librul in that regard but he remains a librul to the core.
OTOH, Cohen is right up there with the likes of Cilizza, MoDo, Mrs Greenspan, et. al., in needing a low tumbrel number. Or affix their head to the end of a pike. I’m giving Trump ideas.
schrodinger's cat
Aside from the NYT, Snooze Hour is the worst peddler of the both-sides bs. Giggle sisters, Gwen and Judy annoy the crap out of me.
Pogonip
@RaflW: Yes I remember Shoe.
Grace
I still can’t believe the Bush Crime Family couldn’t get all this Trump Foundation nonsense flushed into the sunlight during the primary. Must have gotten rusty after the W run…
James E Powell
Until Trump corruption stories are leading the cable news five nights a week, the occasional WaPo article will have no impact on this election.
Mai.naem.mobile
I wonder if regarding the NYT 1/ something against the Clintons.2/ Roger Stone has something on the Sulzburgers. 3/ They don’t have Bezos money in the event of a Thiel/Trump lawsuit.
jl
IMHO it is a failure on the scale of the enormity of their coverage preceding the Iraq invasion.
The whines and cries about partisanship and need for caution in ideologically charged or biased coverage are obvious and total childish weak ass BS, as in bullSHIT.
Remember that there was a GOP primary and the press started their miserable failure back then. So much for the rough tough vetting they claim that they do. Most of the media coverage is what you would expect from cowardly sniveling corrupt corporate hacks, which is what all the celebs and corporate brass are, and a large fraction of the reporters who do that actual work, as opposed to preening in front of the cameras and posturing for undeservedly fat paychecks.
Gravenstone
In keeping with the post title, apparently The Pretenders and Stevie Nicks will be kicking off a tour late October. Just a note for those nostalgically inclined.
BruceFromOhio
“Gee, we seem to be wading in something wet. Has it really been raining that much?”
(snort)
Frankensteinbeck
@JMG:
I get the impression he’s just decided to be sensationalistic instead of going with actual expert analysis. ‘Look, this swing makes it look like Trump is going to win!’ kind of thing. Responsible analysis is boring explanations of likely voter models and long-term aggregates. It makes you feel like a counting machine, not a genius who is now invited everywhere for his shining electoral insights.
EDIT – @Mai.naem.mobile:
Yes, and they famously have hated the Clintons since Bill’s presidency.
Redshift
@RaflW:
And never will. Unless you strictly follow the conservative line, you’re “biased,” no matter how far you bend over backward to accommodate them.
Fair Economist
@RaflW:
Everybody is, because it’s still being published.
jl
@Frankensteinbeck: Silver has to produce the appearance of newsworthy information product on a regular, actually extremely frequent, basis now to pay bills. It shows. Sam Wang doesn’t, and it shows. The short run profit or die business model does not work for every type of useful product or service.
Edit: Oh no, the AEA enforcers are banging down my door to take away my econ degree! They are quick.
Roger Moore
@SenyorDave:
Yes; it’s called “opposition research”. It’s theoretically done so that the candidate can use whatever dirt they dig up in political ads, but AFAIK, the campaigns will also launder some of their research through the media. They’ll share it with a reporter, who will verify their work and then publish under their own byline. Then the campaign can quote the news report as a theoretically unbiased news source rather than having the research questioned as partisan. It’s a good bet that at least some of the dirt on Trump is from this category.
Matt McIrvin
@SFAW: MacNelly was also an editorial cartoonist and he was politically conservative, but it was a different era’s type of conservatism. I remember someone (can’t remember who) describing MacNelly as maybe the only right-wing editorial cartoonist who wasn’t an idiot.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@schrodinger’s cat:
I rejoiced when I saw Ifil would *not* be a debate moderator this time around. Last time her false equivalence/bothsidesdoit was more than I could stand.
Amir Khalid
@Fair Economist:
There’s a commenter here who nymed himself after a character in that strip — Uncle Cosmo.
slag
We give media a pass for how they typically cover science—esp Climate Change!—because they don’t know anything about science. But they cover politics in the exact same way. Maybe it’s time to admit we have a structural problem.
Steeplejack
@Fair Economist:
Comics are something I really miss in the digital age. I know they’re out there, on GoComics and elsewhere, but I never think to get around and look at them. Much easier in the days when I was paging through the newspaper or even going directly to the crossword puzzle, usually on the same page spread.
Frankensteinbeck
@Roger Moore:
The problem being, of course, that the campaign has no control whatsoever over what the reporter chooses to publish. The Hillary campaign can give them one hundred Trump stories a day, and the NYT can publish one hundred made-up bad stories about Hillary, and one milktoast story about Trump, if that’s what they feel like. There is no mechanism to stop them, and as the last couple of posts have reminded us, they specifically don’t give a flying fuck about journalistic responsibility or the actual truth.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Roger Moore: Yes. I think the HuffPo piece on his kinda looks like a bribe of the NY State Comptroller for a tax break and the WaPo piece on using his foundation as a slush fund may, possibly, been helped along by the Hillary campaign. My guess is they’ve been keeping their powder dry until now, just before the debate, to make sure Trump has to answer some uncomfortable questions in the first one. Also just as early voting is starting. Thing is, this stuff is probably just the tip of the iceberg. When the media circus over this dries up they’ll release even more damning stuff if they have it, and they probably do.
I’m not sure if the Clinton Foundation stuff came from Trump/RNC oppo research or not but if so they may have fired too soon, especially considering the gun was loaded with blanks.
Major Major Major Major
@jl: I saw a headline today, something to the effect of “MOMENTUM SHIFTS BACK TO CLINTON AFTER SIGNIFICANT TIGHTENING IN RACE!!”, and the graph they showed of the poll’s history was basically two parallel horizontal lines with a tiny crimp at last week’s datapoint. Sad!
FlipYrWhig
Alleged billionaire Donald Trump used other people’s money to buy paintings of himself. Twice. It’s like something Hunter Thompson would write as a colorful satirical hallucination.
mark k
James Powell is right. I cut my cable off in July after watching NBC and CBS normalize Trump. I haven’t missed it at all and my rabbit ears antenna pick up enough football (which I watch with the sound down listening to classic albums) to turn on the TV once a week or so. Cutting off your cable and doing so in the millions is the only way to save this place. Its that simple and that easy.
I’m afraid liberals don’t have the guts to boycott and fight back like they used to in the 60s. Hope I’m wrong but this election should be a landslide for the Democrats if not for TV, all of it a Rightwing microphone. Liberals are even using terms like “Alt-right” instead of fascist and wasting hour upon hour discussing that lying scum Trump. It is now a fatal addiction.
mike in dc
The October surprise might be the media finally properly vetting the Republican nominee for president. Not holding my breath, though.
burnspbesq
The critique of Drum as “excessively mild-mannered” is both specious and infuriating.
Drum is really good at assembling data so that they speak for themselves. Why isn’t that good enough? Are y’all too damn lazy to read stuff that doesn’t come with an incendiary headline?
RareSanity
@Grace:
The Bushes might be sociopaths, but they aren’t stupid…they don’t want Trump in the White House either. There would be absolutely zero benefit to them, plus he pants ole Jeb during the primary. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeb is feeding information to “journalists”, trying his best to knee cap The Orange Lantern.
Keith G
@burnspbesq: I began typing this before I saw your take…but anyway….The dissing of Kevin Drum is immature (a given on these threads, it seems), but worse, just plain stupid and bereft of rational thought.
Roger Moore
@slag:
What you mean “we”, white man?
Major Major Major Major
@burnspbesq: Evidently.
Mary G
@burnspbesq: @Keith G: Thirding the defense of Drum. He calls out both sides, 95% of the time conservatives, but in the 5% of the time he calls out liberals he has data to back up his concerns and we need that to keep us honest. I’m not interested in reading cheerleaders, which is why I don’t go to a ton of sites like Kos.
ETA: plus Friday catblogging!
Major Major Major Major
@burnspbesq: @Keith G: It often seems that around a third of the people Doug hates are chosen at random.
Starfish
@Steeplejack: I was just looking at a newspaper and noticed that “Wow, newspaper comics are still the terrible garbage that they were.”
There are so many fun web comics.
gratuitous
In the comments to Farenthold’s latest (never read the comments), someone was carping about how biased the story was, and why weren’t there similar stories about Clinton? He was careful to inoculate himself against any charge of partisanship by saying he hadn’t yet decided to vote for Trump, but he sure couldn’t vote for Hillary (by which reference, I presumed he meant Clinton and not Duff or Swank).
I responded (never respond to a comment) with a quick rundown of the differences between the squeaky-clean Clinton Foundation and the corrupt-up-to-its-eyeballs Trump Foundation, and concluded that the reporting was one-sided because the facts were one-sided: there simply isn’t anything attached to the Clinton Foundation even remotely as corrupt or illegal as the activities going on under the Trump Foundation.
scav
Well, the photo in the Skittles tweet? Apparently taken by a refugee and lifted without permission or at least reported as such by the BBC. The latter is certainly has the odds of truth based on past behavior, while the former has the twist of fate that made Trump’s stage falling down so enjoyable.
FlipYrWhig
@Major Major Major Major: Drum was a whipping boy from way back, like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias.
Roger Moore
@Frankensteinbeck:
Which means the campaign has to know the reporter and outlet they’re sharing their research with. I assume there’s also some implicit threat to share with multiple reporters, so one reporter/outlet can’t spike the story- or even be too diligent about confirming the details- without the risk of being scooped.
FlipYrWhig
@gratuitous: The purpose of the Clinton Foundation is philanthropy. The purposes of the Trump Foundation are money laundering and fraud.
RareSanity
@Major Major Major Major:
Yeah, but that’s part of his charm…there’s always at least a whiff of trolling in his posts.
I think he enjoys watching to see who will take the bait, just like he’s done in the comment sections here, and to various people on Twitter. It’s just his way, and it’s pretty funny watching him work his craft.
JMG
All three of Nate’s models have Trump’s chances of winning improving as a result of today’s polls. I’m tellin’ ya, 50-50.
Calouste
Btw, that picture of the bowl of Skittles that neo-Nazi Donald Trump Jr used in his deplorable tweet about refugees, was:
1) Stolen without attribution (no surprise there)
2) Taken by a refugee
h/t the BBC
Roger Moore
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
AFAIK, it came from Judicial Watch, which is an anti-Clinton group that’s been going after them since they were in Arkansas. So not a campaign-related opposition research group, but a group that’s dedicated to anti-Clinton propaganda.
jl
@FlipYrWhig: Seems to me that beside the NYT’s mania, GOP scum merchants peddled BS against the Clintons, and a lot of the corporate media rant to slurp up the cow pies.
Sorry I get so scatological when I discuss the situation, but don’t know how else to accurately describe the situation. Every time I think I am over reacting, I hears something that screams that I am not. This morning I heard what CBS called a special report that was little more than a Trump ad revolving around the recent NJ/NY bombings that the noxious wingnut hack Major Garrett put together. Really disgusting.
FlipYrWhig
@JMG: I am no expert, OK, but I think there’s something super hinky about the likely voter screening that started to kick in. I just don’t see that Hillary has done anything seriously amiss or that Trump has done anything positive. I don’t see cause and effect.
Stan
@SenyorDave: Hell yes, its called opposition research. I suspect the problem this year is that there is such a blizzard of damaging info about trump, how do you pick the worst bits out for use?
Major Major Major Major
@FlipYrWhig: It’s mostly the screens. The Upshot had a thing today where they gave four polling outfits the same survey results, and the “poll results” they returned varied between Trump +1 and Hillary +4. GOTV!
ETA: That said, picking screens is their job, and they tend to be righter about it than whatever my instincts say. Sam Wang is down to 81% today from 88% yesterday–these polls must be a doozy.
Dadadadadadada
@RareSanity: I see a number of possibilities: 1) JEB was so weak he couldn’t convince his own family to robustly support his candidacy (see his own mother pre-emptively calling out the JEB campaign as too much, too late). 2) The Crime Family is discredited by the disaster of GWB, and no one of importance is willing to leak to them or work with them. 3) They were motivated and well-sourced, but just too incompetent to make anything of Trump’s negatives. 4) They were competent enough, but too complacent, and figured their boy would make short work of the bully, and so had the anti-Trump ammo on hand, but put off using it until too late. 5) They were complacent, and so failed to gather the anti-Trump ammo until it was too late. 6) Trump bought them off in some way. 7) They’re playing 11-D chess, losing to Trump on purpose so that he’d go on to get crushed by HRC, thus discrediting Tea Party conservatism, thus setting the stage for George P. Bush to “bring the party back to sanity” in a future presidential run.
Etc. The incompetence/complacency-related ones are the ones I find most convincing; JEB certainly never seemed like a good candidate, or to believe he had to work all that hard.
Roger Moore
@FlipYrWhig:
My gut feeling is that their likely voter screens are based on 2014 voting patterns rather than 2012.
RaflW
Another OT, but I just cannot stay silent. News I’ve seen in the past few hours:
-As Florida inmate begged for help, guards gassed him to death
-Milwaukee Jail Inmate Terrill Thomas Dies Of Dehydration In Cell While Begging For Water, Death Ruled Homicide
-Tulsa cops: Female officer appeared shaken, fell to her knees, officers put arms around her and comforted her… while the man she shot bled out and EMTs came too late
This country is so f**ked up. SO. DAMN. Disastrously. Fvked. UP.
Matt McIrvin
@Grace: Jeb’s efforts during the primary campaign were almost entirely concentrated on fighting Marco Rubio, who he assumed would be the other “establishment” figure left standing in the endgame.
All of the Republicans assumed that something Trump did would sink him. Ted Cruz’s strategy initially was to be nice to him so that he could get Trump’s voters when Trump imploded. The others just stayed out of their way.
Doug R
@Grace: ¿JEB?’s lack of oppo research on the trumpster fire is further proof he really didn’t want the job
RaflW
@Doug R: Trump’s ‘low energy’ attack on Jeb. had the stunningly rare benefit of being accurate.
hovercraft
@Major Major Major Major:
Todays polls look pretty decent for our side, it’s more that some of the favorable polls for Clinton when she was solidly in the lead are falling off. Here is the RealClearPolitics page with today’s polls. I think of them as right leaning so kind of my worst case scenario.
JMG
@Major Major Major Major: Wang posted that estimate before Monmouth poll of Fla., I believe (could be wrong).
Major Major Major Major
@Roger Moore: Here’s what The Upshot had in their four pollsters/four results thing:
waysel
@Roger Moore: I wonder what is the source of financing for Judicial Watch? Charitable contributions, from fake charities?
Calouste
@Roger Moore: One pollster (Selzer(?) IIRC) said that their likely voter screens were more like 2004 than 2012. Which misses the fact that the electorate went from 76% white in 2004 to 69-70% this year, and also has the racist assumption that minorities won’t vote as much because there is no minority candidate on the ballot.
Matt McIrvin
@Calouste: Other assumptions could explain that: minorities are younger on average, so they could be assuming that the relative lack of youth enthusiasm for Clinton could make this a geezer election (very good for Trump). I’ve also been hearing a lot of anecdotes about, supposedly, the white non-voters that Sean Trende was going on about in 2012 actually planning to turn out for Trump, who has scratched their itch for a real racist on the ticket. So I could see the electorate being whiter than 2012, at least.
nonynony
@Grace:
What did they do for oppo research before? The Bush family isn’t really known for its deep oppo research, they’re known for hitting below the belt and coming up with smears based on loose connections to the facts. Their oppo research has tended to be just deep enough to put together a smear that causes an emotional response in the white people that form their base and is hard for the target to defend against (Willie Horton and John McCain’s “black children” come to mind, but also Clinton’s philandering that he really didn’t keep secret and John Kerry’s Vietnam war protest history both fall into that camp too). But subtle enough and deniable enough that it doesn’t come across as outright racist to most of the white people in their base.
The “genius” of the Bush family is that they always were willing to hit lower and go meaner than their opposition. That they were willing to pander to the worst elements to get their votes. They met their match in Trump, who was willing to go even lower than them and pander even harder than them to the same audience. The Trump Foundation stuff is a different kind of oppo research – it’s the kind of oppo research Democrats and old-school Republicans might have done. I could see Bob Dole’s team finding out about it, researching it, and leaking it casually to the press. Nixon would have had a field day with it. But not the Bushes.
hovercraft
@Calouste:
Which given that Obama is now saying he is willing to campaign for Hillary 1 to 2 times a week till the election, and to appear in Ads, seems to be a foolish assumption. There is also the fact that Hillary is polling strongly with minorities, today’s Latino Decisions Poll has her up 51, 70 to 19 %. Never mind that Trump’s offensiveness will also drive turnout. In 2012 many people of color especially black people were disappointed with Obama the economy wasn’t getting better fast enough, no immigration reform, no single payer, but they still came out to vote, not in the record numbers from 2008, but still more than enough to win. The GOP dissing Obama, blocking everything including immigration reform, restricting access to voting, these and many other things made people come out to vote. If Hillary and Obama between the two of them, not to mention Michelle, Joe, Elizabeth, and Bernie, can’t get democrats to turn out, then we deserve to lose.
LAO
@waysel: It’s Larry Klayman’s baby — you know that awful nutbag attorney, who has spent the last 5 months or so trying to get admitted pro hac vitae in Nevada so he can represented Cliven Bundy.
randy khan
@Starfish:
Just as a counterpoint to the “newspaper comics are bad” idea: Brewster Rockit, Space Guy. (Certainly available online, too, but I read it in the funny papers.)
Doug!
@Major Major Major Major:
Yes, that’s true.
Roger Moore
@waysel:
Not technically speaking fake charities, but the same kind of big right-wing foundations that pay for the rest of the right wing noise machine. It sounds as if the biggest chunk of their funding comes from foundations set up by Richard Mellon Scaife.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@RareSanity: I can’t believe any Republican actually wants Trump to win, at least not one with half a brain and an ounce of foresight. I mean, his Presidency would be a disaster 6 months in and it would be totally obvious even to most of the dimwits that currently support him. He’d probably do something impeachable within the first three weeks. I mean, the Republican brand is kind of in the toilet at present, but he’d flush it all the way down to the cesspool.
Mnemosyne
@RaflW:
FWIW, even my cousin-in-law who is a cop was like fuck this about the Tulsa shooting when usually he’s the one saying we all need to wait and see how the investigation turns out.
catclub
@Mary G:
For instance, his data show that the Flint lead in the water story would have been a nothingburger a few years back, when all the lead levels were higher.
Mnemosyne
@LAO:
Isn’t there also some weird molestation accusation against Klayman, which is why he can’t get admitted in Nevada? It was something fairly complicated, not just a straightforward he diddled his kid accusation.
Matt McIrvin
@catclub: Drum is really keen on the lead->crime theory, though, so did he think that would have been a correct assessment?
LAO
@Mnemosyne: the weird molestation charge is, I think from his divorce should so you should take that with a LARGE GRAIN OF SALT, but it’s not why he can’t get admitted. He has a (different) pending ethical complaint in the DC circuit which is not resolved — and the Nevada won’t grant him admission for that reason.
Brachiator
@mark k:
There’s this new thing. Called the Internet. A lot of people use it instead of cable. Lots and lots of people.
msdc
OTOH, you have this actual headline and lede from today’s NYT:
We live in a political and media environment where giving Donald Trump “only” $5 million is snubbing him.
Brachiator
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
A few Republicans have actually turned away from Trump. Problem is, most of these people don’t want Hillary to win either.
But I also get the sense that people, especially those who claim to be fed up with the system, almost look at politics as though it were an episode of “Celebrity Apprentice.” They don’t have any real sense that Trump could be a disaster. I heard some nitwit talk show hosts declare that the president is just a figurehead anyway, controlled by his party and special interests. And yet these same clowns expect Trump to come in and sweep out the party hacks and special interests.
FlipYrWhig
@Matt McIrvin: I can see the assumptions behind that model, but IMHO Trump’s spiritual (as it were) appeal to the white people who didn’t vote before would seem to be largely canceled out by the utter lack of a GOTV apparatus.
Mnemosyne
@LAO:
I don’t feel like looking it up, but the “molestation” thing seemed to be more of a claim that he was unable to interact with the kids at their age level and got really angry when told that he was doing and saying things that were inappropriate for their age level. Which, knowing what I know of Klayman, seemed very plausible.
Brachiator
@FlipYrWhig:
Just a second. Let’s attach the network news election filter. “Both sides do it.”
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@waysel: From Wikipedia,Judicial Watch is funded by:
Matt McIrvin
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?: I hear many, many of them saying “both of them suck, but Hillary is worse.” When they talk about her it sounds exactly like Democrats talking about Trump: she’s a potential dictator who will abrogate the Constitution, start mass arrests and killings, cancel all future elections, etc., and also a pathological liar and criminal. They figure Trump is just a stupid buffoon with a big mouth, so they’re willing to take that hit to keep her out.
thedeadcanary
Hey Doug J, f u, Kevin is a treasure
Turgidson
@Brachiator:
And those same morons think the presidency is currently a tyrannical menace, to the extent that they hold Obama responsible every time they clog their own fucking toilet or it’s raining outside. Consistency isn’t these nitwits’ strong suit.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Brachiator:
While also denouncing Obama as the worst supervillain tyrant in history.
prob50
@Gravenstone:
Like them both. Interesting contrast in writing styles. Hynde very blunt – in your face. Nicks in general is very ethereal.
And, of course. both in my age group, so if you disagree, then, Get offa my lawn!
prob50
@FlipYrWhig:
Don’t forget Gratuitous Self-Promotion.
Aleta
@Grace: The Bushes thought they’d use Trump to pull the weeds out of the field so Jeb’s hands would stay clean. Also, I believe Jeb was not the right candidate for making the election be about racism via immigration, which in my opinion was the neo right wing design for winning all along.
prob50
@Brachiator:
Yeah, I have gotten a whiff of that “oh, he’s not really gonna do all that crazy-ass*d shit he’s talking about, so things will be OK”.
Morrooonnnnss!
Enhanced Voting Techinques
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
Trump hasn’t been talking much policy lately and all the attention has been on Hilary so the Republicans are indulging their Dream Generic Republican Candidate fantasies, who, as tag says, is both a desert topping and a floor wax. Do note Trump has been screaming about how the debate is rigged, my take it he is desperate to keep it about Hilary as long as he can and a debate will stop that.
mark
@Brachiator: WTF do you think I’m using now? You can’t be so dense as to suggest millions of progressive people disconnecting their cable would have no effect to the Wurlitzers bottom line? Boycotts work if enough people have he discipline
Enhanced Voting Techinques
@prob50:
Indeed. What they ignored as with GW Bush, a figurehead president it’s a free for all faction fight with policy all over the place. Look at the Iraq War, seven faction in the Bush admin so the war had seven completely different objectives and the occupation was just endless confusion. Top that off Trump doing anything for dime and all politics with him is personal, by 2020 GW Bush won’t have to worry about being the worst president in US history.
BruceFromOhio
@jl: This x 16 million.