Destroying a Man’s Life

 

What is the value of a man’s soul? What is the worth of a man’s reputation? Most of us would say that both are priceless: the first is a gift from G-d, the second created by the toil and sweat of the person who lives a productive and honorable life.

But the Left believes the destruction of a reputation and soul is inconsequential if they determine the cause is just.

And thus they have decided to sacrifice Brett Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh was a man who had worked as a public servant most of his life, dedicating his efforts to being of service to others. His spotless character elicited sneers from the Left, which called him a choir boy. His years of coaching girls, nurturing not only male but female friendships, and hiring women to work for him were meaningless in the face of the Left’s desire to fatally malign him. This entire disgusting display by the Left shows how deeply the secular has poisoned our society.

Dennis Prager was quoted as saying the following about our good and bad deeds:

Every one of us has a moral bank account. Our good deeds are deposits, and our bad deeds are withdrawals. We therefore assess a person the same way we assess our bank account. If our good actions outweigh our bad actions, we are morally in the black; if our bad actions greatly outweigh our good actions, we are morally in the red.

By all accounts — literally all — Brett Kavanaugh’s moral bank account is way in the black. He has led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family and commitment to community few Americans can match. On these grounds alone, the charges against him as a teenager should be ignored.

And yet the Left says his reputation is worthless.

The Bible teaches that destroying a man’s reputation is as bad as killing or stealing or lying: we kill a man’s soul when we degrade him; we steal his credibility and honor when we promote unsubstantiated slurs; we create a living hell for him when he is forced to live in a culture that lies about him and his contributions to society.

Brett Kavanaugh is not the only one whose reputation is damaged. His wife, Ashley, his two daughters, Margaret and Liza, are wounded, perhaps irreparably; his parents are devastated by the vitriol and slurs against him; his colleagues, friends—in fact anyone whose life has touched his life have been dirtied and wounded. Every person in the media, every Senator who has not promised to support him against this travesty, every human being who not only condemned him before he originally testified to the committee, but in the face of the absence of facts are not persuaded that he has been unfairly judged on the sexual assault of Christine Ford, have committed not only a terrible injustice, but will carry the sin of their behavior for the rest of their lives. For any of them who may be religious, they have sinned against Kavanaugh and his family and against G-d Himself. And there is no making amends.

I found this story that I believe speaks volumes to where we find ourselves as a nation in how we have allowed the Left to destroy Brett Kavanaugh:

A Chassidic tale vividly illustrates the danger of improper speech: A man went about the community telling malicious lies about the rabbi. Later, he realized the wrong he had done, and began to feel remorse. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything he could to make amends. The rabbi told the man, ‘Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds.’ The man thought this was a strange request, but it was a simple enough task, and he did it gladly. When he returned to tell the rabbi that he had done it, the rabbi said, ‘Now, go and gather the feathers. Because you can no more make amends for the damage your words have done than you can recollect the feathers.’

Where will we find the Constitutional traditionalists who are willing to risk having their lives destroyed?

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 243 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    These are campaign rallies.  Every president in my lifetime has campaigned for his party in the midterms.  Am I missing something?  Is a campaign rally somehow unacceptable when Trump does it? 

    • #91
  2. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    However, Trump’s mocking comments at the rally last night went so far over the line, he is creating the Blue Wave all by his lonesome.

    But Gary, would you change your tune if there were a red wave?

    Personally, I’m not going to expend one joule worrying about the outcome of the November election.  I’ll do my duty, vote Republican (and against our local sales tax hike renewal), enjoy Thanksgiving, then head to Florida for the National Review cruise.

    • #92
  3. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    What good are these rallies?

    That’s a very good question. I suspect they’re quite good — that his support in the communities in which he holds them goes up. I don’t know that, but I suspect it’s true.

    Overall, things do seem to be going pretty well. We’re likely to get hurt in the mid-terms, but we kind of saw that coming anyway.

    I really don’t get it. You say you have no evidence of it, but you believe it anyway. You may be right, and I don’t have evidence that you are not. But why is this dispositive for holding them. He probably could get a good crowd in California, if his handlers chose the venue properly. But would he win the state? Of course not. I don’t even know that he win the district for the local Congressman.

    I hate to say it, Hank. You usually make a good case for your thoughts. But I think this is rather weak.

    And I mustn’t forget why I really hate these rallies: The man is president. We are not some South American rinky-dink country; we are the United States of America. I suspect, in your hears of hearts, you agree with me: Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

     

    • #93
  4. DrewInWisconsin 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    To continue countering the media narrative. In 2018, with a mainstream media that comes straight from the pit of hell, this is important.

    • #94
  5. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    What good are these rallies?

    That’s a very good question. I suspect they’re quite good — that his support in the communities in which he holds them goes up. I don’t know that, but I suspect it’s true.

    Overall, things do seem to be going pretty well. We’re likely to get hurt in the mid-terms, but we kind of saw that coming anyway.

    I really don’t get it. You say you have no evidence of it, but you believe it anyway. You may be right, and I don’t have evidence that you are not. But why is this dispositive for holding them. He probably could get a good crowd in California, if his handlers chose the venue properly. But would he win the state? Of course not. I don’t even know that he win the district for the local Congressman.

    I hate to say it, Hank. You usually make a good case for your thoughts. But I think this is rather weak.

    And I mustn’t forget why I really hate these rallies: The man is president. We are not some South American rinky-dink country; we are the United States of America. I suspect, in your hears of hearts, you agree with me: Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    George, I’m actually not at all upset about the fact that he holds rallies. He’s an atypical President, a media figure who is engaged in a pop-culture war with the left. We always knew that he was a reality television figure; we probably didn’t expect the press to surrender any pretense of objectivity and join him at his level, but that’s what happened. (And I won’t speculate which actually hit bottom first.)

    I don’t mind the rallies. I don’t mind the bravado, the boasting, and the general silliness. I prefer Reagan, but I’ll accept this. I just don’t want bullying or seriously inaccurate statements, or petty squabbles with inconsequential people. But I’m generally okay with the Trump on style, considering it a part of the pushback against a tiresome left that has too long had everyone cowed.

    Hank, you know I admire you, and I respect our friendship and glad it. But we are two different cats, so to speak. It will always be thus. 

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    We should work harder to work together.

    I do like when you wrote that. But I can’t help  my visceral as well as intellectual contempt for our President, and I never will hide it. He is doing damage to my country in some ways that matter most. I just can’t be like you. I understand the feelings of some that he must be defended; but I will take not that on.

     

    • #95
  6. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Gary,  the “Ever/Never” dynamic has long-passed its ‘sell-by’ date; causes folks on either end to whip into an unhealthy froth, and doesn’t advance the conversation at all.  One is left to shout at the other from behind the barricades. truly vexing….
    Hi, George! Having POTUS hold rallies doesn’t – in and of itself – stop the country’s work from getting done, does it?

    • #96
  7. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    To continue countering the media narrative. In 2018, with a mainstream media that comes straight from the pit of hell, this is important.

    Poppycock! Or balderdash. Take your pick!

    • #97
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):
    then head to Florida for the National Review cruise.

    . . . which is when?

    • #98
  9. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    But I can’t help my visceral as well as intellectual contempt for our President, and I never will hide it.

    I find this an honest but illustrative comment.  You start from a position of contempt.  So I’m not surprised that your assessment of anything he does reflects exactly that. 

    Please don’t think I am attacking you.  Each of us makes our own assessments based upon our own criteria.  You are welcome to yours, and I am glad to have the insight to that process.  It helps me understand the reactions of many others as well. 

    • #99
  10. Clifford A. Brown Inactive
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    A close relative just sent me a lengthy email. That is unusual.

    She is outraged at the Kavanaugh smear. She questions the likely origins of Dr. Ford’s claims, suggesting false memory mixed with real events.

    She has written multiple Senators, something outside of her usual response to politics.

    Anecdote? Look at the latest poll in North Dakota. There is a basic violation of Americans’ sense of decency and fairness. People are assessing responsibility and preparing to impose consequences at the ballot box.

    • #100
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    This post is not about Trump. I will say that Conservatives show contempt for those people who overvalue their feelings, especially when it keeps them stuck in wishful thinking (like I wish Trump wasn’t president). I have always believed that people are entitled to their feelings, but I think that after hearing about them for the umpteenth time, I’ve had plenty. If you had a child who was stuck in wishful thinking, wouldn’t you tell them it was time to move on?

    • #101
  12. DrewInWisconsin 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    To continue countering the media narrative. In 2018, with a mainstream media that comes straight from the pit of hell, this is important.

    Poppycock! Or balderdash. Take your pick!

    I pick neither. The mainstream media in its current form is evil. Anyone who watches CNN or reads the New York Times or Washington Post (to pick just a small number of infernal news outlets) is consuming a product of evil minds.

    • #102
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Anecdote? Look at the latest poll in North Dakota. There is a basic violation of Americans’ sense of decency and fairness.

    Thank goodness for the North Dakotans. I’ll take any good news I can get!

    • #103
  14. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    PHenry (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    But I can’t help my visceral as well as intellectual contempt for our President, and I never will hide it.

    I find this an honest but illustrative comment. You start from a position of contempt. So I’m not surprised that your assessment of anything he does reflects exactly that.

    Please don’t think I am attacking you. Each of us makes our own assessments based upon our own criteria. You are welcome to yours, and I am glad to have the insight to that process. It helps me understand the reactions of many others as well.

    Thank, PHenry. I always respect that you seem to respect my positions.

    Let me just say again something that those who have not followed my thoughts, as you have, may not understand: My reactions to Donald Trump have nothing to do with policies he has put through, or most of the people he has put forward, certainly judges. Even Reagan couldn’t top them.

    Rather, my contempt for him is strictly because of his manner and his lack of character, things that have always been with him, but I had hoped, with his attaining the Presidency, he might have realized where he was, and try and hides his needs. Sadly, it has not happened.

    • #104
  15. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The statist media and the Democrat party lie. It’s well funded, too. How do you respond?

    I prefer Cocaine Mitch’s approach.  He wins.

    • #105
  16. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    PHenry (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    But I can’t help my visceral as well as intellectual contempt for our President, and I never will hide it.

    I find this an honest but illustrative comment. You start from a position of contempt. So I’m not surprised that your assessment of anything he does reflects exactly that.

    Please don’t think I am attacking you. Each of us makes our own assessments based upon our own criteria. You are welcome to yours, and I am glad to have the insight to that process. It helps me understand the reactions of many others as well.

    Thank, PHenry. I always respect that you seem to respect my positions.

    Let me just say again something that those who have not followed my thoughts, as you have, may not understand: My reactions to Donald Trump have nothing to do with policies he has put through, or most of the people he has put forward, certainly judges. Even Reagan couldn’t top them.

    Rather, my contempt for him is strictly because of his manner and his lack of character, things that have always been with him, but I had hoped, with his attaining the Presidency, he might have realized where he was, and try and hides his needs. Sadly, it has not happened.

    Our fixation on the *person* occupying the office (on either end of the spectrum) and/or unexamined party connection can entangle us, while the process gets neglected, at times. This is true, it seems, most of the time; but the current occupant of the Oval Office brings it into rather sharp relief…  

    • #106
  17. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Stad (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    However, Trump’s mocking comments at the rally last night went so far over the line, he is creating the Blue Wave all by his lonesome.

    But Gary, would you change your tune if there were a red wave?

    Personally, I’m not going to expend one joule worrying about the outcome of the November election. I’ll do my duty, vote Republican (and against our local sales tax hike renewal), enjoy Thanksgiving, then head to Florida for the National Review cruise.

    I actually think that Kavanaugh will create a Red Wave in Senate, but only Senate, races.  

    Otherwise, I predict a Blue Wave.  

    We shall see.  Let’s talk on November 8th.

    • #107
  18. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    To continue countering the media narrative. In 2018, with a mainstream media that comes straight from the pit of hell, this is important.

    The pit of hell?  Is the press demonic?

    • #108
  19. DrewInWisconsin 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    To continue countering the media narrative. In 2018, with a mainstream media that comes straight from the pit of hell, this is important.

    The pit of hell? Is the press demonic?

    Yes.

    They spread lies they know are lies to destroy a man’s life and his family. Doesn’t get much more evil than that.

    • #109
  20. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    Gary, the “Ever/Never” dynamic has long-passed its ‘sell-by’ date; causes folks on either end to whip into an unhealthy froth, and doesn’t advance the conversation at all. One is left to shout at the other from behind the barricades. truly vexing….
    Hi, George! Having POTUS hold rallies doesn’t – in and of itself – stop the country’s work from getting done, does it?

    At 1:00 a.m. on October 2, 2018 I awoke with a start and realized that I could vote for Trump if the Democrats nominate a SJW like Harris, Hirono, Gillibrand, or Spartacus.  What an epiphany!

     

    • #110
  21. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    PHenry (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    But I can’t help my visceral as well as intellectual contempt for our President, and I never will hide it.

    I find this an honest but illustrative comment. You start from a position of contempt. So I’m not surprised that your assessment of anything he does reflects exactly that.

    Please don’t think I am attacking you. Each of us makes our own assessments based upon our own criteria. You are welcome to yours, and I am glad to have the insight to that process. It helps me understand the reactions of many others as well.

    Thank, PHenry. I always respect that you seem to respect my positions.

    Let me just say again something that those who have not followed my thoughts, as you have, may not understand: My reactions to Donald Trump have nothing to do with policies he has put through, or most of the people he has put forward, certainly judges. Even Reagan couldn’t top them.

    Rather, my contempt for him is strictly because of his manner and his lack of character, things that have always been with him, but I had hoped, with his attaining the Presidency, he might have realized where he was, and try and hides his needs. Sadly, it has not happened.

    Our fixation on the *person* occupying the office (on either end of the spectrum) and/or unexamined party connection can entangle us, while the process gets neglected, at times. This is true, it seems, most of the time; but the current occupant of the Oval Office brings it into rather sharp relief…

    I am not sure if I agree with this or not, Nanda. It sounds good, to an extent, to not focus on the occupant. But this is our history. Until the Left got a hold of our holidays, we had only two Presidents, to be remembered that way: Washington and Lincoln. And we have always studied men like Franklin, Jefferson, etc. Some people think (my jury is out on this) that the study of biography is the best to study history.

    • #111
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Columbo (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    What good are these rallies?

    That’s a very good question. I suspect they’re quite good — that his support in the communities in which he holds them goes up. I don’t know that, but I suspect it’s true.

    Overall, things do seem to be going pretty well. We’re likely to get hurt in the mid-terms, but we kind of saw that coming anyway.

    I really don’t get it. You say you have no evidence of it, but you believe it anyway. You may be right, and I don’t have evidence that you are not. But why is this dispositive for holding them. He probably could get a good crowd in California, if his handlers chose the venue properly. But would he win the state? Of course not. I don’t even know that he win the district for the local Congressman.

    I hate to say it, Hank. You usually make a good case for your thoughts. But I think this is rather weak.

    And I mustn’t forget why I really hate these rallies: The man is president. We are not some South American rinky-dink country; we are the United States of America. I suspect, in your hears of hearts, you agree with me: Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

     

    This. There are new rules. This is a new era. The media is never going to play it straight. 

    • #112
  23. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Why should our President hold rallies when he is in the office?

    To continue countering the media narrative. In 2018, with a mainstream media that comes straight from the pit of hell, this is important.

    Poppycock! Or balderdash. Take your pick!

    I pick neither. The mainstream media in its current form is evil. Anyone who watches CNN or reads the New York Times or Washington Post (to pick just a small number of infernal news outlets) is consuming a product of evil minds.

    I have had a NYT crossword subscription for a few years. I never read the paper. When I sign in to print a puzzle, I get off the front page as quickly as possible so as not to bust a blood vessel. The subscription is expiring next week, so I finally decided to cancel it and not give any more money to this publication. Of course, I couldn’t just hit “cancel,” I had to chat with an online rep. When he offered me 50% off, I said “I wouldn’t pay one cent.” His reply: “Understood.”

    • #113
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The statist media and the Democrat party lie. It’s well funded, too. How do you respond?

    I prefer Cocaine Mitch’s approach. He wins.

    Gary, Mitch can only do so much. See:

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    …it’s worth noting that two of the most decent and anodyne men in modern political history, Mitt Romney and Brett Kavanaugh, have both been savaged by the left for the most tenuous of justifications. Prior to the sexual witch hunt being initiated, we were being assured that Kavanaugh would spell “the end of the Constitution,” as well as (more importantly to the left) the end of legal abortion.

    I think we can safely conclude that, moving forward, no Republican president will be treated decently by the left. That ended sometime during the Bush administration.

    I think media-fueled Democratic outrage is going to be a constant feature when they are not in power, just as media silence will characterize intervals of Democratic rule.

    Don’t idealize about stuff that doesn’t exist anymore. 

    I remember reading Andrew Breitbart’s book and thinking that it was good, and then I sort of forgot about it. This Frankfurt School and critical theory stuff is real. 

    • #114
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I’m listening to Howie Carr right now. The university of Southern Maine is literally giving out credit to get on a bus to protest Kavanaugh at Sen. Collins’s Office in DC. Who is paying for the bus? The school or George Soros? Does it matter? Cocaine Mitch responds how?

    This is how it works, now.

    Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™

    Trump holds a rally and sounds and ask like South American dictator. We are enough the banana republic, that I don’t really care. Let him try something different.

    Listen to David Stockman about to structure of the economy. Watch his interview on real vision. Watch the exchange series on real vision.

    You have to take the gloves off. Critical theory, Alinsky, Cloward and Piven; all of that crap works. People want their cut of the Keynesian centralized graft system or they wanted it fixed.

    Bush never controlled spending either.

    We are where we are.

    • #115
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The university of Southern Maine is literally giving out credit to get on a bus to protest Kavanaugh at Sen. Collins’s Office in DC. Who is paying for the bus? The school or George Soros? Does it matter?

    Think about it. Why are they doing this? Because higher education is a racket. They have jobs and salaries to protect. Any principles they have are secondary. Statism pays and Kavanaugh cancels out statism.

    • #116
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The statist media and the Democrat party lie. It’s well funded, too. How do you respond?

    I prefer Cocaine Mitch’s approach. He wins.

    Gary, Mitch can only do so much. See:

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    …it’s worth noting that two of the most decent and anodyne men in modern political history, Mitt Romney and Brett Kavanaugh, have both been savaged by the left for the most tenuous of justifications. Prior to the sexual witch hunt being initiated, we were being assured that Kavanaugh would spell “the end of the Constitution,” as well as (more importantly to the left) the end of legal abortion.

    I think we can safely conclude that, moving forward, no Republican president will be treated decently by the left. That ended sometime during the Bush administration.

    I think media-fueled Democratic outrage is going to be a constant feature when they are not in power, just as media silence will characterize intervals of Democratic rule.

    Don’t idealize about stuff that doesn’t exist anymore.

    I remember reading Andrew Breitbart’s book and thinking that it was good, and then I sort of forgot about it. This Frankfurt School and critical theory stuff is real.

    Snort. I’m not idealizing — at least, I don’t think I am. But there was a time not too long ago when Supreme Court nominees — even Republican ones — could pass on a bipartisan basis: even Clarence Thomas was confirmed with the support of no fewer than eleven Democratic Senators.

    No, things really did get worse. I think the inflection point was around 2000. Certainly I remember saying, then, that any plausible pretense of press balance was over, and we would have unleashed and unhinged coverage moving forward.

    Basically, I think that’s when journalism lost whatever pride it had left after the Clinton years.

    • #117
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The statist media and the Democrat party lie. It’s well funded, too. How do you respond?

    I prefer Cocaine Mitch’s approach. He wins.

    Gary, Mitch can only do so much. See:

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    …it’s worth noting that two of the most decent and anodyne men in modern political history, Mitt Romney and Brett Kavanaugh, have both been savaged by the left for the most tenuous of justifications. Prior to the sexual witch hunt being initiated, we were being assured that Kavanaugh would spell “the end of the Constitution,” as well as (more importantly to the left) the end of legal abortion.

    I think we can safely conclude that, moving forward, no Republican president will be treated decently by the left. That ended sometime during the Bush administration.

    I think media-fueled Democratic outrage is going to be a constant feature when they are not in power, just as media silence will characterize intervals of Democratic rule.

    Don’t idealize about stuff that doesn’t exist anymore.

    I remember reading Andrew Breitbart’s book and thinking that it was good, and then I sort of forgot about it. This Frankfurt School and critical theory stuff is real.

    Snort. I’m not idealizing — at least, I don’t think I am. But there was a time not too long ago when Supreme Court nominees — even Republican ones — could pass on a bipartisan basis: even Clarence Thomas was confirmed with the support of no fewer than eleven Democratic Senators.

    No, things really did get worse. I think the inflection point was around 2000. Certainly I remember saying, then, that any plausible pretense of press balance was over, and we would have unleashed and unhinged coverage moving forward.

    Basically, I think that’s when journalism lost whatever pride it had left after the Clinton years.

    I’m addressing Gary, not you. 

    • #118
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The statist media and the Democrat party lie. It’s well funded, too. How do you respond?

    I prefer Cocaine Mitch’s approach. He wins.

    Gary, Mitch can only do so much. See:

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    …it’s worth noting that two of the most decent and anodyne men in modern political history, Mitt Romney and Brett Kavanaugh, have both been savaged by the left for the most tenuous of justifications. Prior to the sexual witch hunt being initiated, we were being assured that Kavanaugh would spell “the end of the Constitution,” as well as (more importantly to the left) the end of legal abortion.

    I think we can safely conclude that, moving forward, no Republican president will be treated decently by the left. That ended sometime during the Bush administration.

    I think media-fueled Democratic outrage is going to be a constant feature when they are not in power, just as media silence will characterize intervals of Democratic rule.

    Don’t idealize about stuff that doesn’t exist anymore.

    I remember reading Andrew Breitbart’s book and thinking that it was good, and then I sort of forgot about it. This Frankfurt School and critical theory stuff is real.

    Snort. I’m not idealizing — at least, I don’t think I am. But there was a time not too long ago when Supreme Court nominees — even Republican ones — could pass on a bipartisan basis: even Clarence Thomas was confirmed with the support of no fewer than eleven Democratic Senators.

    No, things really did get worse. I think the inflection point was around 2000. Certainly I remember saying, then, that any plausible pretense of press balance was over, and we would have unleashed and unhinged coverage moving forward.

    Basically, I think that’s when journalism lost whatever pride it had left after the Clinton years.

    I’m addressing Gary, not you.

    Damn. It’s so hard to follow those little gray lines, when you get to be my age.

    • #119
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The statist media and the Democrat party lie. It’s well funded, too. How do you respond?

    I prefer Cocaine Mitch’s approach. He wins.

    Gary, Mitch can only do so much. See:

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    …it’s worth noting that two of the most decent and anodyne men in modern political history, Mitt Romney and Brett Kavanaugh, have both been savaged by the left for the most tenuous of justifications. Prior to the sexual witch hunt being initiated, we were being assured that Kavanaugh would spell “the end of the Constitution,” as well as (more importantly to the left) the end of legal abortion.

    I think we can safely conclude that, moving forward, no Republican president will be treated decently by the left. That ended sometime during the Bush administration.

    I think media-fueled Democratic outrage is going to be a constant feature when they are not in power, just as media silence will characterize intervals of Democratic rule.

    Don’t idealize about stuff that doesn’t exist anymore.

    I remember reading Andrew Breitbart’s book and thinking that it was good, and then I sort of forgot about it. This Frankfurt School and critical theory stuff is real.

    Snort. I’m not idealizing — at least, I don’t think I am. But there was a time not too long ago when Supreme Court nominees — even Republican ones — could pass on a bipartisan basis: even Clarence Thomas was confirmed with the support of no fewer than eleven Democratic Senators.

    No, things really did get worse. I think the inflection point was around 2000. Certainly I remember saying, then, that any plausible pretense of press balance was over, and we would have unleashed and unhinged coverage moving forward.

    Basically, I think that’s when journalism lost whatever pride it had left after the Clinton years.

    I’m addressing Gary, not you.

    Damn. It’s so hard to follow those little gray lines, when you get to be my age.

    It was a good point and Gary wasn’t responding. 

    Anyone: where am I wrong? 

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.