Twas a wonderful day today when Biden went to Wisconsin to visit real hard frontline workers in Wisconsin. He brought the handy dandy pamphlet Rick Scott and Ron Johnson wrote about sunsetting all federal programs which includes Social Security and Medicare. Those workers were none too happy with the Repubs. Bottom line: Biden did the "rope-a-dope" (thank Howard Cosell) around the party of NO, last night and today. Clever clever man, our president!
On top of today's Today's Edition, it's wonderful to hear that Biden's spreading the word on the GOP's desire to end Social Security and Medicare!
To me, it's clear that--barring any major change in his health--Biden's the Candidate for 2024 (Thank you Robert Hubbell for bringing to fore his oratory adroitness!). JFK was probably as clever--he was hilarious in some of his press conferences, as you can see if you google "JFK humorous press conferences"--but Biden nailed the GOP good naturedly for an hour and 45 minutes without flagging or stuttering!
MTG is undoubtedly livid that Biden's savoir faire eclipsed her tepid little efforts at disruption.
I'm still celebrating Biden's speech last night and happily read the comments of so many other readers who agree. I'm also grateful for everyone who shared their sources for good, honest and thoughtful news coverage -- all of those I go to regularly were mentioned and I learned some new ones.
We need them. I agree with Sheila from MI who said: "The mass media overall has changed and demonstrably so." I'll add -- and much the worse for the change. I too have stopped subscribing to NYT and WaPo - enough of the negativity, false equivalencies, misleading headlines etc etc. The latest example the headlines right before Biden's speech with polls showing 70% (or whatever) folks dissatisfied. Those polls from the same folks who predicted the "red wave", and the media fell for it again (that would be putting it charitably).
Louis Menand has an excellent article/review (Making the News) in the Feb 6 New Yorker. There’s good history, going back to the ‘50s, but most interesting to me are his comments on recent patterns covered in Margaret Sullivan’s new book, “News Room Confidential: Lessons (and Worries) from an Ink–Stained Life” (2022).
Here’s and example Menand and Sullivan offer of the press misunderstanding its role: "when, just 11 days before the 2016 election, the FBI Director James Comey announced that some of the emails Clinton wrote when she was Secretary of State had been found on the laptop of Anthony Wiener, the disgraced former New York City mayoral candidate, the Times went into overdrive. In six days, the paper ran as many cover stories about Clinton's emails as it had about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election. This coverage set the tone for the rest of the mainstream media, which proceeded to pile on."
"Sullivan’s position is an appeal to the original rationale of the First Amendment. We have a free press in order to protect democracy. When democracy is threatened, reporters and editors and publishers should have an agenda. They should be pro–democracy. Reporters should 'stop asking who the winners and losers are,' Sullivan says; they should 'start asking who is serving democracy and who is undermining it.' The press is in the game. It has a stake."
We must find, support, create -- whatever it takes -- a way back to a truly "free press".
Yes. And require broadcasters to announce whether they are "reporting" or "commenting". State that they are either providing factually based information or bloviating bullshit.
Just as when I receive a letter from a website domain seller that looks like a "bill" - but includes a statement that says "This is not a bill. This is a solicitation." They include that so they won't get sued for scamming. With the right laws in place for media and "news outlets" the public could sue their asses into oblivion.
The “old” rules limited ownership of multiple media in any specific market, categorized as ADIs (Areas of Dominant Influence). The anti-regulation rightwing destroyed such limitations under Ronny Raygun.
I have sent the following letter the The New York Times (nytnews@nytimes.com). I don't expect my little letter to make a difference. But I had to say something. At some point somebody's letter might push them past a tipping point...
Subject: bias in headline writing
In the following headline, the unnecessary phrase "what he says are" implies some doubt about those Republican proposals.
It's in the public record that Republicans made a lot of noise about cutting Medicare and Social Security.
This insertion of political bias in your headlines has severely damaged your newspaper's reputation as a "newspaper of record."
If I can't trust your headlines, I can't trust your paper.
Knock it off. Keep the headlines neutral and bias-free.
And... ANNOUNCE THIS CHANGE IN POLICY. Don't keep your subscribers guessing.
Biden Heads to Florida With a Fresh Political Foil in House Republicans
President Biden plans to use his visit to the University of Tampa to warn about what he says are Republican proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security.
As a 60-year reader of the paper, I am writing to ask how you could allow yourselves to be duped by the FBI in 2016 into becoming a mouthpiece for their spin, in blatant contradiction to journalistic principles that any cub reporter should, and probably does, know. You’ve seen the articles by Tim Snyder, Will Bunch, Eric Wimple, Robert Hubbell, etc. and you know that your readers are not fools. It is clear that NYT is no longer the paper of record, and unless you take strong measures to right the ship, what’s left of the trust and good will earned from 1851 until now will drain away, leaving the world a colder, less-informed place. We will find other reliable sources for news, and the NYT will join Fox News and its ilk as another compromised, discredited and unreliable purveyor of propaganda.
Please don’t allow this to happen. You made the wrong choice in 2016; make the right one now and save at least some of your integrity. It can be built back; you have some excellent, dedicated, ethical journalists, but there is a cancer upon the paper that needs to be treated. Inaction and delay is as strong a statement of principles as overt support for the dark forces you claim to oppose.
"We will find other reliable sources for news." More and more I rely on a half dozen very good sub stack newsletters, while I disregard the Times and WaPo. Hmmm, what if our favorites got together for a conjoint reliable source for news?
Comey, Comey, Comey! What total incompetent leader! It has been reported that he, inserted his supposed apolitical position days before the 2016 by stating HRC’s emails were under investigation again! Why? Reportedly, rogue agents in the NYC office were going to ‘leak’ information to the press…..leak information! I haven’t read the FBI agents handbook, BUT leaking information about an active investigation is reported to be a CRIME!
The cowardly Comey instead for firing the rogue agents, reveals the information himself!
Very often, people read the headline without reading the actual story. Unfortunately, also very common, the body of the story contains no information supporting the headline.
I always wonder about the disconnect. I know that the people who write the headlines are not the reporters who write the stories, and reporters have complained about the nature of headlines applied to their stories. More recently, I have concluded, that this is how the New York Times (and other media outlets, in particular nightly news programs) manage to “provide the news“ more or less honestly, while somewhat subtly (for those who don’t pay attention) pushing a different message
Republican defense to anything: "I do NOT have my hand in that cookie jar, but if I do it's because it's mine and besides, those cookies don't taste very good because they are Democrat cookies."
Yes, the part of that sentence that caught me was the quote "...I like Sanders....but having her sit in a chair sucked all the charisma..." HUH? A sentence that should convince anyone still in doubt that EVERY damn Repub is truly demented. Sanders has NEVER exhibited any evidence of charisma--at least not that I have ever noticed.
Yes, that was a fun newsletter to read! Thank you!
I didn't watch Sarah Huckabee Sanders so it's nice to know that she bombed. She's dreadful. One of my fellow postcarders who is from Arkansas says she won their this time with her name recognition but doesn't think she will get re-elected. Shocking to think she is in charge of anything.
If anyone has time to help, PostcardsToVoters.org is now writing for Jennifer McClellan for Congress in a Special Election in Virginia! Let's win another one! Yay for the PA victories!!!
Thanks, Sarah, for highlighting Jennifer's run for U.S. Congress. She will definitely be a force for our cause. The election is February 21, 2023. I postcarded for her, too!
Joe Biden and his Administration have been playing offense all along. It's called Governing.
While the Republicans were being the show ponies the Biden Administration has been the work horses these past two years. The media has given the flashy crazy Republicans all the attention and didn't bother to cover that boring legislating, legal, security, international relations work of "sleepy Joe."
Well folks, the fruits of the Biden Administration's labors were in full and glorious view at the SOTU 2023. President Biden's resounding litany of the amazing array of meaningful Bills signed by him echoed through the Halls of Congress. All the Republicans could do was sputter.
How do you pronounce dour and sour? I thought they rhymed and my Google pronunciation thinks that they do. Thank you for your wonderful newsletter. Now I can go to sleep a little lighter.
Q: How do you pronounce “dour”? Does it have an OO or an OW sound?
A: These days, “dour” can properly be pronounced either way, to rhyme with “tour” or “tower.” But it wasn’t always so.
At one time, this adjective meaning stern, obstinate, or gloomy had only one pronunciation, the one with the OO sound.
A usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) says “dour, which is etymologically related to duress and endure, traditionally rhymes with tour.”
“The variant pronunciation that rhymes with sour is, however, widely used and must be considered acceptable,” American Heritage adds.
The dictionary says 65 percent of its Usage Panel preferred the traditional pronunciation while 33 percent preferred the variant.
I had always thought that 'dour', pronounced 'doo-er', had Scottish roots. This etymology site confirms my assumption.
"dour (adj.) mid-14c., "severe" (of grief); late 14c., of men, "bold, stern, fierce," a word from Scottish and northern England dialect, probably directly from Latin durus "hard," from PIE *dru-ro-, suffixed variant form of root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast." Sense of "gloomy, sullen" is late 15c." https://www.etymonline.com/word/dour
Not where I’m from! English varies in spelling, pronunciation and meaning, depending on where you live. Ask any Brit, Irishman, Canadian, Aussie, or American to spell or pronounce dour. Then listen carefully. (I have family in Ireland, England and Canada. Since we are descended from one of the first lexicographers of the French language, well, let’s just say that ‘discussions’ of what is ‘correct’ is a favorite family sport -for the last 300 years.)
As someone who originally supported Bernie Sanders I have been pleased beyond measure with the Biden presidency and Tuesday night was no exception. I am also leaning towards his running again. I know the age issue will not go away, but not only is he doing an excellent job, I worry that Democrats will not find a strong, energetic and charismatic candidate to replace him. That being said, I don't know why there is not more discussion about who will be his running mate. I personally like Harris, but she is not very popular and she has not distinguished herself in her role as VP. I cannot say how much of this is on her, but it is truth. In an election where the candidate will be 86 at the end of his term, voters will be thinking much more about the Vice President than is typical in presidential races. And, switching running mates is in itself challenging and brings up many issues. Will BIPOC voters be angry that she is not on the ticket? Will Biden be best served having another women of color take her place? I do not know, but I do think that if he runs again, he needs a new running mate. In an ideal world Harris would make up some reason why she needs to leave the ticket, to make it appear that she is not being "dumped", but would she do that? Take one for the team so to speak. Again, I do want Biden to run again, mostly because his extensive experience and deep sense of humanity is making him a truly great President. I actually think he is closest to LBJ in his brilliance in a leader (Vietnam war aside). I would love to hear your and other people's thoughts on this issue. P.S. If Trump is the candidate this calculus changes, but I don't think he will be.
Hi, Lily. Very thoughtful and provocative questions! I am waiting to see what the Spring brings in terms of political developments before I weigh in. I agree that it is reasonable to consider age and running mates; whether any change should be made to the ticket is an open question.
While Ms. Demings was a Congresswoman, who was not able to be elected Senator in the 2022 election, she would be a great asset to the Biden Administration-as Director of the FBI. Cheri Beasley as Attorney General would be another good move. If Kamala Harris passes on another four years, I would love to see Ayanna Pressley in her place.
Kamala is doing what Biden asks of her - to work on special assignments. One such assignment: the ongoing migration issue caused by the dangerous living conditions existing in some Central American countries. People are leaving their homes out of fear for their lives and that of their children.
Kamala is doing what she does best, identifying the root causes of migration from these countries, and the marshaling resources to provide jobs for citizens that will improve the economic opportunities in these countries. So far she has investment commitments from corporations totaling over $4 billion dollars. (Up from $3 billion in June 2022.)
Biden assigned this task to Kamala in March 2021. It is not an issue that can be solved in a few months. It takes time, focus and expertise for substantive progress. It has not been covered well by the press. (I know you’re shocked!). I’m including a link to the most recent article about this work that I have access to. There is also a NYT article, but I am not a subscriber.
Biden has also given Kamala many opportunities for diplomatic outreach to our allies. She has navigated those waters very well gaining the respect of the heads of state as they get to know her. Foreign diplomacy experience is critical, as we all know. (Ukraine & NATO)
I fully support Kamala Harris for Biden’s running mate in 2024. She’s been in the room with Biden since his election, learning the ins and outs of governance on a national level. That is invaluable. She’s also there to weigh in on the decisions Biden makes. Kamala is taking a Master Class in governance from the most consequential president since FDR.
I agree with all you say. I'm not talking competency or ability but rather politics. I don't think she is an asset on the ticket for those undecided voters who decide elections.
I agree. She is focused on her job and the special assignment she has been given. She has done nothing to pull attention away from POTUS, which a good VP should never do. She is being mentored by the smartest kid on the planet, regardless of his age.
Most of what you posted is true. The issue with Harris is she does not attract voters and donors and she is a perfect example of someone who will and was more effective in the Senate. I don’t agree she has gained the experience you mentioned because if she were more charismatic and effective you would see and hear more from her. She doesn’t have the skills yet to lead the country and polls support that.
I believe Americans will see and hear more from Kamala given that the Administration will be out there promoting their successes and what’s yet to come. This will provide opportunities for her to make a connection with more voters.
My dream scenario: 1 of, or preferably both, Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito kick the bucket and Kamala Harris is nominated to the Supreme Court. The problem lies in the lack of anyone approaching half of the breadth of legislative and foreign policy experience that Biden has. I like Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Tammy Duckworth, Gretchen Whitmer or Gina Raimondo.
Alternatively, Biden rides it out with Harris and appoints one of the above to a cabinet post or other high position to broaden their backgrounds.
You raise a interesting point. No Democratic president since LBJ had the congressional experience and relationships that Biden has as well as the respect. This has made a difference. No question if Biden is the candidate he needs a younger experienced person who voters believe can carry on without missing a step.
Why you’re a professional writer and I am not can be found in this sentence: “...and his good-natured response to ugly taunts by GOP leaders in the House.”
I would have used a word other than “leaders” right there. Probably one on George Carlin’s list.
I am also still celebrating President Biden's brilliant SOTU address. It feels so good to be led by someone that is so smart and so compassionate. He is the man of the hour and will be appreciated as one of our finest Presidents. He took the high road without backing down. The contrast between his mature adult presentation and the screaming monkeys in the audience provided a master class in owning an audience.
Last night we watched the PBS Newshour and there was an interview of the President by Judy Woodruff. It was nice to see her back in the game on an assignment basis. Judy went out on top. At 75 she stepped back and reinvented herself. The new anchors have it handled quite well, although we do miss her. But I digress.
Here is the clip of that interview. Our impression was two fold. First, we were genuinely captured by President Biden's competence and charm. Such confidence and wit. As Lindsey Graham said (before he went to the dark side). "Who doesn't love Joe Biden?"
Watch the video and then guess our second impression.
Thanks so much, Bill, for sharing that. What a pleasure to listen to smart people talk! To see mature people allow each other to finish their sentences! And to hear them say something substantive.
I don't think either of them mentioned Fox "News" (and others of that ilk) as a major reason for the dramatic division in America. For years I have wondered aloud, "Why does Rupert Murdoch hate the United States?" My husband would laugh and say, "He doesn't hate us. But he sure loves our money!"
I hope the Democrats work on messaging, messaging, messaging. I had no idea about all the projects underway until I watched the State of the Union speech. As the benefits from successful legislation roll out, citizens need to be constantly reminded that their tax dollars are working for them. That Democrats are working for them. That Biden is working for them. I know it's over-the-top, but I'd like to see banners and billboards proclaiming BIDEN DID THIS FOR US all over the country, messages all over the internet, and commercials all over TV.
Thank you for the link, I missed that last night. Your post reminded me of the excellent interview of Biden by Heather Cox Richardson last year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Ks3BnFymQ
My wife and I are in total support of Bidens Presidency and his handling of the job. And we truly like the guy.
But our second impression of this interview was not positive at all. I am close to Joe's age. But I must view him from the point of view of younger voters. His manner of speaking with Judy Woodruff was shockingly clumsy. Much of it is his speech impediment. But frankly, he didn't come across to us as a sharp 80 year old. My impression was of someone much older who may have had a stroke.
If President Biden decides to run for reelection, he will have let his ego exceed his good judgment and WE will lose.
I would much rather offer my full throated support. But to do so is to ignore reality at our peril.
Though I am grateful for his accomplishments thus far, I also agree thay Biden may not be the best Democrat to run for president in 2024. I wonder whose names come to your mind when you contemplate that primary, Bill.
Thanks so much Bill! Biden is at his best when he is interviewed and has a chance to show his depth of knowledge on governing along with his compassion for people.
I was happy to hear his comments on “the polls”. Really, how effective are those poll results given the few number of people polled, and the number of people who actually answer their phones when an unknown call comes through.
I see I am not he only one who was puzzled by he statement that sour and dour do not rhyme. Figuring my Midwest knowledge was once again behind coastal thinking I also looked it up. So who is the most confused?
All rhymes for dour - RhymeZonehttps://www.rhymezone.com › rhyme › typeofrhyme=a...
Q: How do you pronounce “dour”? Does it have an OO or an OW sound?
A: These days, “dour” can properly be pronounced either way, to rhyme with “tour” or “tower.” But it wasn’t always so.
At one time, this adjective meaning stern, obstinate, or gloomy had only one pronunciation, the one with the OO sound.
A usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) says “dour, which is etymologically related to duress and endure, traditionally rhymes with tour.”
“The variant pronunciation that rhymes with sour is, however, widely used and must be considered acceptable,” American Heritage adds.
The dictionary says 65 percent of its Usage Panel preferred the traditional pronunciation while 33 percent preferred the variant.
I have been blissfully ignorant for about 80 years (I cannot say within a year or two when I first heard the word 'dour') so I was really surprised that there was any other way to pronounce it. Had I heard the traditional way, I would likely gone to the door to see who was there because that would have been triggered in my mind. I now have personal suspicions about the Usage Panel. Thank you for alerting me to what I must consider an elite dictionary. I wonder what would Joe say? (chuckle) .
I thought there was little that could top Biden’s delivery of the State of the Union address to make my week. However, your review of it has now achieved that. Thank you, you have truly made my week special.
I am pretty sure you don't need grammarians correcting you, Mr. Hubbell. Really, folks (as Biden would say), you have too much time on your hands when you are working on Hubbell's grammar. Let's use the Biden speech as a launching pad for discussion of the important issues and not the circus. Focus.
Robert, congratulations and thank you for encapsulating perfectly the contrast between Pres. Biden's SOTU and SHS absurd "rebuttal!" I did make myself watch it...and trust me, it was quite the deliberate effort to do so. The unquestionable peak of the absurdity was her punchline exclamation to which you provided perfect elucidation. Sanders: "The choice is between normal or crazy." You: "The line that divides America is between normal or crazy— and democracy or fascism, decency or depravity, tolerance or hate, generosity or greed, Joe Biden or Marjorie Taylor Greene."
I made numerous attempts to try and put the appropriate perspective to her LAUGH OUT LOUD line, but could not encapsulate it as perfectly as you did. She undoubtedly thought she had created a wonderful slam dunk damning catchphrase that she and Republicans could use heading into 2024. She did complete half that task...a damning catchphrase...but it cannot be used by Republicans with any seriousness. But, I can hear many a Democrat uttering those words over and over again! And, while being sure to give you a nod, they should quote your defining contrast of what her statement, despite it not being her intent, actually means.
Democrats rightly are happy about Biden's State of the Union speech. After the 2016 election, national democrats have played their hand well, and as a result, appear to have solidified their base sufficiently to win national and state-wide elections. In his speech Tuesday, Biden gave us a blueprint for messaging and campaigning looking to the 2024 elections. Thank you.
My concern is what has not been addressed by Democrats. I feel it more than you who live in blue areas. I live in Florida, where the combination of gerrymandering, stacking of the courts, and culture war propaganda has solidified our authoritarian culture, and popularized our authoritarian governor, who is tearing down the pillars of democracy in this state.
That same thing is happening in red states all over the country. We are stuck with it for the time being.
But in swing states we have more of a chance, where I worry how those factors will affect the 2024 elections, where the red state/blue state battle is happening within these states. I do not see us figuring out how to combat the gerrymandering and culture wars in red areas in those states.
I am convinced that the gloating and laughing about the behavior of the extremists in Congress is not a good way to follow up on Biden's success. All it does is reinforce the feeling by working class Americans who are voting for extreme right-wing candidates, that the elitists in Congress and the media do not relate to their lives.
Read Ezra Klein's book, "Why we are Polarized". It sets out what we are up against. It is a mistake to believe that the most important swing voters in swing states will vote blue if we continue to make fun of and marginalize MAGA-type supporters.
We cannot control the effect of conservative judges or gerrymandering, but we can control how we relate to people who are attracted to DeSantis and Trump. We should take a page from President Biden.
You write: I am convinced that the gloating and laughing about the behavior of the extremists in Congress is not a good way to follow up on Biden's success.
I hope you don't t think I "gloated and laughed" and the behavior of extremists in Congress. That wasn't my intent, and I just re-read my column and I don't see it. Instead, I condemned the behavior of extremists in Congress. If we can't do that because we are afraid of bruising the feelings of people who applaud such behavior, then we are doomed. We cannot accept such behavior as normal. Do we want our children and grandchildren to act that way in school and at a city council meeting?
I do not think that of your newsletter today. I love the way you frame things and often forward your newsletter to others. You were just playing off of the Republican response to the State of the Union.
I wrote because I was listening to Morning Joe, and many at the table this morning were laughing and opining that the Republicans are so out of touch and they were expressing their usual characterizations of the extreme right. I think they are out of touch if they think making fun of MAGA supporters and legislators will help with the swing voters in swing states, which is my concern for 2024. I think they also believe that the extreme right behavior will cause swing voters to vote Democratic. I think that assessment is incorrect. I think working people love it when MAGA people act out, because they see it as "owning the libs", who they perceive as elite.
That is why the manner in which Biden comes across is more effective than many progressives, who alternately want to "educate" people, or make fun of them. Whenever our words or behavior is condescending to people, we lose.
Judy, I feel your pain as I’m in a red county here where our governor has already ascended to the presidency with his recent claims of “ executive privilege”.
I appreciate Robert’s ( what I consider appropriate) levity and his daily posts serve to encourage my activism. I don’t believe he in any way is encouraging me to make fun or marginalize MAGA supporters. Although I do believe he effectively points out the hypocrisy of the GOP leaders.
I am not worried about the way in which Robert frames things. I love how he writes. I worry about the talking heads on TV who are calling the right wing republicans out of touch with the mainstream, with crazy qanon threories, etc. I worry about my fellow activists who want to "educate" people and lecture people about the right way to think, or make fun of the MAGA crowd. It is just not a good election strategy, There are alot of people assuming swing voters in swing states will be turned off by investigations of Hunter's laptop. I am not so sure.
Agreed that we should try to counter the lies and disinformation without alienating some swing voters.
An article in the Sentinel this week discussed close races that Dems should have won handily in Osceola. Apparently Repubs were also canvassing Dems. It would be interesting to know what they said.🤔
I received an email from my Freedom Caucus Rep yesterday⬇️
“My position always has been, and remains the same: I believe that there should be NO changes to Medicare or Social Security for those in or near retirement.”
Of course they can’t propose/facilitate changes to those in or near retirement….just for those kids and grandkids.
Ezra Klein's book is really interesting. I took a lot from that. My strongest impression is that we should avoid alienating type of exchanges and focus on creating alternate ways to frame the issues, ignoring the culture war discussions, and hope that younger people will be drawn to how we discuss things and act on their behalf.
Note the wiggle room your Rep. provides himself/herself: "....for those in or near retirement." They still will do their best to reduce SS & Medicare benefits for those not yet "near" retirement. One proposal voiced has been to raise the age for qualifying to 70. Even by age 65, there are far too many Americans too sick or too poor, seriously needing income from SS and coverage from Medicare and, as recently reported, average life spans of Americans have decreased quite a bit which would mean that many Americans might only be able to collect on these programs to which they have paid into their entire working life.
“The choice is between normal or crazy.” Exactly, crazy, bizarre, lying “witch.” I thought that in 2016. Well, to be honest, in 2000, But then, I have NEVER forgotten that the propaganda machine has been churning on for decades. This for the benefit for the great unwashed, but the drivers know exactly what they are doing. Chump taught them best. The end justifies the means, no matter how grotesque
Twas a wonderful day today when Biden went to Wisconsin to visit real hard frontline workers in Wisconsin. He brought the handy dandy pamphlet Rick Scott and Ron Johnson wrote about sunsetting all federal programs which includes Social Security and Medicare. Those workers were none too happy with the Repubs. Bottom line: Biden did the "rope-a-dope" (thank Howard Cosell) around the party of NO, last night and today. Clever clever man, our president!
On top of today's Today's Edition, it's wonderful to hear that Biden's spreading the word on the GOP's desire to end Social Security and Medicare!
To me, it's clear that--barring any major change in his health--Biden's the Candidate for 2024 (Thank you Robert Hubbell for bringing to fore his oratory adroitness!). JFK was probably as clever--he was hilarious in some of his press conferences, as you can see if you google "JFK humorous press conferences"--but Biden nailed the GOP good naturedly for an hour and 45 minutes without flagging or stuttering!
MTG is undoubtedly livid that Biden's savoir faire eclipsed her tepid little efforts at disruption.
I'm still celebrating Biden's speech last night and happily read the comments of so many other readers who agree. I'm also grateful for everyone who shared their sources for good, honest and thoughtful news coverage -- all of those I go to regularly were mentioned and I learned some new ones.
We need them. I agree with Sheila from MI who said: "The mass media overall has changed and demonstrably so." I'll add -- and much the worse for the change. I too have stopped subscribing to NYT and WaPo - enough of the negativity, false equivalencies, misleading headlines etc etc. The latest example the headlines right before Biden's speech with polls showing 70% (or whatever) folks dissatisfied. Those polls from the same folks who predicted the "red wave", and the media fell for it again (that would be putting it charitably).
Louis Menand has an excellent article/review (Making the News) in the Feb 6 New Yorker. There’s good history, going back to the ‘50s, but most interesting to me are his comments on recent patterns covered in Margaret Sullivan’s new book, “News Room Confidential: Lessons (and Worries) from an Ink–Stained Life” (2022).
Here’s and example Menand and Sullivan offer of the press misunderstanding its role: "when, just 11 days before the 2016 election, the FBI Director James Comey announced that some of the emails Clinton wrote when she was Secretary of State had been found on the laptop of Anthony Wiener, the disgraced former New York City mayoral candidate, the Times went into overdrive. In six days, the paper ran as many cover stories about Clinton's emails as it had about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election. This coverage set the tone for the rest of the mainstream media, which proceeded to pile on."
"Sullivan’s position is an appeal to the original rationale of the First Amendment. We have a free press in order to protect democracy. When democracy is threatened, reporters and editors and publishers should have an agenda. They should be pro–democracy. Reporters should 'stop asking who the winners and losers are,' Sullivan says; they should 'start asking who is serving democracy and who is undermining it.' The press is in the game. It has a stake."
We must find, support, create -- whatever it takes -- a way back to a truly "free press".
End corporate ownership of any more than one newspaper, radio station, TV station.
Bill Moyers fought for this decades ago.
Yes. And require broadcasters to announce whether they are "reporting" or "commenting". State that they are either providing factually based information or bloviating bullshit.
Just as when I receive a letter from a website domain seller that looks like a "bill" - but includes a statement that says "This is not a bill. This is a solicitation." They include that so they won't get sued for scamming. With the right laws in place for media and "news outlets" the public could sue their asses into oblivion.
The “old” rules limited ownership of multiple media in any specific market, categorized as ADIs (Areas of Dominant Influence). The anti-regulation rightwing destroyed such limitations under Ronny Raygun.
Yup.
And prohibit programs from using the word “news“ in their description when what they are offering has no resemblance to news whatsoever
I have sent the following letter the The New York Times (nytnews@nytimes.com). I don't expect my little letter to make a difference. But I had to say something. At some point somebody's letter might push them past a tipping point...
Subject: bias in headline writing
In the following headline, the unnecessary phrase "what he says are" implies some doubt about those Republican proposals.
It's in the public record that Republicans made a lot of noise about cutting Medicare and Social Security.
This insertion of political bias in your headlines has severely damaged your newspaper's reputation as a "newspaper of record."
If I can't trust your headlines, I can't trust your paper.
Knock it off. Keep the headlines neutral and bias-free.
And... ANNOUNCE THIS CHANGE IN POLICY. Don't keep your subscribers guessing.
Biden Heads to Florida With a Fresh Political Foil in House Republicans
President Biden plans to use his visit to the University of Tampa to warn about what he says are Republican proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security.
which is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/us/politics/biden-heads-to-florida-with-a-fresh-political-foil-in-house-republicans.html
Bob Stromberg
Round Lake, NY
Bravo!
Mine from 2/3/23 was a bit less polite:
Dear NYTimes:
As a 60-year reader of the paper, I am writing to ask how you could allow yourselves to be duped by the FBI in 2016 into becoming a mouthpiece for their spin, in blatant contradiction to journalistic principles that any cub reporter should, and probably does, know. You’ve seen the articles by Tim Snyder, Will Bunch, Eric Wimple, Robert Hubbell, etc. and you know that your readers are not fools. It is clear that NYT is no longer the paper of record, and unless you take strong measures to right the ship, what’s left of the trust and good will earned from 1851 until now will drain away, leaving the world a colder, less-informed place. We will find other reliable sources for news, and the NYT will join Fox News and its ilk as another compromised, discredited and unreliable purveyor of propaganda.
Please don’t allow this to happen. You made the wrong choice in 2016; make the right one now and save at least some of your integrity. It can be built back; you have some excellent, dedicated, ethical journalists, but there is a cancer upon the paper that needs to be treated. Inaction and delay is as strong a statement of principles as overt support for the dark forces you claim to oppose.
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Keefe
tomkeefe22@gmail.com
"We will find other reliable sources for news." More and more I rely on a half dozen very good sub stack newsletters, while I disregard the Times and WaPo. Hmmm, what if our favorites got together for a conjoint reliable source for news?
Exactly. Wow.
Pretty much the same letter I have written ten times to the Times. Maybe a little more eloquent than mine!
Thank you, Terry, for being persistent.
I'm sorely tempted to send roughly the same letter to them. (Bob S if you have any objection I won't.)
Be my guest. You might couch your letter like this; I saw Bob Stromberg's letter to you, checked it out, and I agree completely.
More is more!
Comey, Comey, Comey! What total incompetent leader! It has been reported that he, inserted his supposed apolitical position days before the 2016 by stating HRC’s emails were under investigation again! Why? Reportedly, rogue agents in the NYC office were going to ‘leak’ information to the press…..leak information! I haven’t read the FBI agents handbook, BUT leaking information about an active investigation is reported to be a CRIME!
The cowardly Comey instead for firing the rogue agents, reveals the information himself!
Very often, people read the headline without reading the actual story. Unfortunately, also very common, the body of the story contains no information supporting the headline.
I always wonder about the disconnect. I know that the people who write the headlines are not the reporters who write the stories, and reporters have complained about the nature of headlines applied to their stories. More recently, I have concluded, that this is how the New York Times (and other media outlets, in particular nightly news programs) manage to “provide the news“ more or less honestly, while somewhat subtly (for those who don’t pay attention) pushing a different message
Who are those headline writers, anyway?
Unnamed, anonymous. "Ghost" writers.
It’s a specific job in the newsroom
Unfortunately, as A.J. Liebling noted a long time ago, the press is free only to the person who owns one.
(Foolish me--it was A.J. Liebling, of course.)
Sara Schmuckabee Sanders has charisma? Who knew?
Republican defense to anything: "I do NOT have my hand in that cookie jar, but if I do it's because it's mine and besides, those cookies don't taste very good because they are Democrat cookies."
Yes, the part of that sentence that caught me was the quote "...I like Sanders....but having her sit in a chair sucked all the charisma..." HUH? A sentence that should convince anyone still in doubt that EVERY damn Repub is truly demented. Sanders has NEVER exhibited any evidence of charisma--at least not that I have ever noticed.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Lord, she has always been vile, and so self-righteous. A putrefying combination.
Yes, that was a fun newsletter to read! Thank you!
I didn't watch Sarah Huckabee Sanders so it's nice to know that she bombed. She's dreadful. One of my fellow postcarders who is from Arkansas says she won their this time with her name recognition but doesn't think she will get re-elected. Shocking to think she is in charge of anything.
If anyone has time to help, PostcardsToVoters.org is now writing for Jennifer McClellan for Congress in a Special Election in Virginia! Let's win another one! Yay for the PA victories!!!
Yes, I have written postcards to VA!
Yay, Lisa!
Thanks, Sarah, for highlighting Jennifer's run for U.S. Congress. She will definitely be a force for our cause. The election is February 21, 2023. I postcarded for her, too!
I’m struggling to finish 25 for WI, also same election date! Yikes, so many postcards, so little time😢
I also write for PTVoters.
Spell check changed your intent to type ‘there’ to ‘their’! Happens to me all the time!!🧐😉
yeah I was wondering about that "their"!! Spell check does some funny ones sometimes!
Also, Activate America has a postcard campaign now for WI State Supreme Court primary. Please spread the word. :-D www.activateamerica.vote
Joe Biden and his Administration have been playing offense all along. It's called Governing.
While the Republicans were being the show ponies the Biden Administration has been the work horses these past two years. The media has given the flashy crazy Republicans all the attention and didn't bother to cover that boring legislating, legal, security, international relations work of "sleepy Joe."
Well folks, the fruits of the Biden Administration's labors were in full and glorious view at the SOTU 2023. President Biden's resounding litany of the amazing array of meaningful Bills signed by him echoed through the Halls of Congress. All the Republicans could do was sputter.
Yep, Biden keeps his head down and keeps on swimming - through the choppy waters to achieve his goals! Love him!
How do you pronounce dour and sour? I thought they rhymed and my Google pronunciation thinks that they do. Thank you for your wonderful newsletter. Now I can go to sleep a little lighter.
Turns out that both are correct. See this explanation: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/dour.html
Q: How do you pronounce “dour”? Does it have an OO or an OW sound?
A: These days, “dour” can properly be pronounced either way, to rhyme with “tour” or “tower.” But it wasn’t always so.
At one time, this adjective meaning stern, obstinate, or gloomy had only one pronunciation, the one with the OO sound.
A usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) says “dour, which is etymologically related to duress and endure, traditionally rhymes with tour.”
“The variant pronunciation that rhymes with sour is, however, widely used and must be considered acceptable,” American Heritage adds.
The dictionary says 65 percent of its Usage Panel preferred the traditional pronunciation while 33 percent preferred the variant.
I had always thought that 'dour', pronounced 'doo-er', had Scottish roots. This etymology site confirms my assumption.
"dour (adj.) mid-14c., "severe" (of grief); late 14c., of men, "bold, stern, fierce," a word from Scottish and northern England dialect, probably directly from Latin durus "hard," from PIE *dru-ro-, suffixed variant form of root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast." Sense of "gloomy, sullen" is late 15c." https://www.etymonline.com/word/dour
“Doo-er” and sour as in “our.”I think!! 🤣
I agree with Bambi and think "dour" as in "sour" is a perfectly acceptable pronunciation.
I agree that the OW pronunciation has become accepted usage. I will update my note tonight.
Yes:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dour
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dour
and others...
I see there are lot of people who use this pronunciation. I am also not originally American 😊
Not where I’m from! English varies in spelling, pronunciation and meaning, depending on where you live. Ask any Brit, Irishman, Canadian, Aussie, or American to spell or pronounce dour. Then listen carefully. (I have family in Ireland, England and Canada. Since we are descended from one of the first lexicographers of the French language, well, let’s just say that ‘discussions’ of what is ‘correct’ is a favorite family sport -for the last 300 years.)
We grew up in similar families 😊
Pronunciations here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dour
As someone who originally supported Bernie Sanders I have been pleased beyond measure with the Biden presidency and Tuesday night was no exception. I am also leaning towards his running again. I know the age issue will not go away, but not only is he doing an excellent job, I worry that Democrats will not find a strong, energetic and charismatic candidate to replace him. That being said, I don't know why there is not more discussion about who will be his running mate. I personally like Harris, but she is not very popular and she has not distinguished herself in her role as VP. I cannot say how much of this is on her, but it is truth. In an election where the candidate will be 86 at the end of his term, voters will be thinking much more about the Vice President than is typical in presidential races. And, switching running mates is in itself challenging and brings up many issues. Will BIPOC voters be angry that she is not on the ticket? Will Biden be best served having another women of color take her place? I do not know, but I do think that if he runs again, he needs a new running mate. In an ideal world Harris would make up some reason why she needs to leave the ticket, to make it appear that she is not being "dumped", but would she do that? Take one for the team so to speak. Again, I do want Biden to run again, mostly because his extensive experience and deep sense of humanity is making him a truly great President. I actually think he is closest to LBJ in his brilliance in a leader (Vietnam war aside). I would love to hear your and other people's thoughts on this issue. P.S. If Trump is the candidate this calculus changes, but I don't think he will be.
Hi, Lily. Very thoughtful and provocative questions! I am waiting to see what the Spring brings in terms of political developments before I weigh in. I agree that it is reasonable to consider age and running mates; whether any change should be made to the ticket is an open question.
I would love to see Val Demings as VP! Her experience as Senator, Orlando Chief of Police, social worker,humble background,dynamic speaker…💙
While Ms. Demings was a Congresswoman, who was not able to be elected Senator in the 2022 election, she would be a great asset to the Biden Administration-as Director of the FBI. Cheri Beasley as Attorney General would be another good move. If Kamala Harris passes on another four years, I would love to see Ayanna Pressley in her place.
Kamala is doing what Biden asks of her - to work on special assignments. One such assignment: the ongoing migration issue caused by the dangerous living conditions existing in some Central American countries. People are leaving their homes out of fear for their lives and that of their children.
Kamala is doing what she does best, identifying the root causes of migration from these countries, and the marshaling resources to provide jobs for citizens that will improve the economic opportunities in these countries. So far she has investment commitments from corporations totaling over $4 billion dollars. (Up from $3 billion in June 2022.)
Biden assigned this task to Kamala in March 2021. It is not an issue that can be solved in a few months. It takes time, focus and expertise for substantive progress. It has not been covered well by the press. (I know you’re shocked!). I’m including a link to the most recent article about this work that I have access to. There is also a NYT article, but I am not a subscriber.
Biden has also given Kamala many opportunities for diplomatic outreach to our allies. She has navigated those waters very well gaining the respect of the heads of state as they get to know her. Foreign diplomacy experience is critical, as we all know. (Ukraine & NATO)
I fully support Kamala Harris for Biden’s running mate in 2024. She’s been in the room with Biden since his election, learning the ins and outs of governance on a national level. That is invaluable. She’s also there to weigh in on the decisions Biden makes. Kamala is taking a Master Class in governance from the most consequential president since FDR.
BIDEN/HARRIS in 2024!
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-vp-harris-touts-42b-private-sector-investment-central-america-2023-02-06/
I agree with all you say. I'm not talking competency or ability but rather politics. I don't think she is an asset on the ticket for those undecided voters who decide elections.
I agree. She is focused on her job and the special assignment she has been given. She has done nothing to pull attention away from POTUS, which a good VP should never do. She is being mentored by the smartest kid on the planet, regardless of his age.
Most of what you posted is true. The issue with Harris is she does not attract voters and donors and she is a perfect example of someone who will and was more effective in the Senate. I don’t agree she has gained the experience you mentioned because if she were more charismatic and effective you would see and hear more from her. She doesn’t have the skills yet to lead the country and polls support that.
Lily & Stephen,
I believe Americans will see and hear more from Kamala given that the Administration will be out there promoting their successes and what’s yet to come. This will provide opportunities for her to make a connection with more voters.
My dream scenario: 1 of, or preferably both, Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito kick the bucket and Kamala Harris is nominated to the Supreme Court. The problem lies in the lack of anyone approaching half of the breadth of legislative and foreign policy experience that Biden has. I like Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Tammy Duckworth, Gretchen Whitmer or Gina Raimondo.
Alternatively, Biden rides it out with Harris and appoints one of the above to a cabinet post or other high position to broaden their backgrounds.
You raise a interesting point. No Democratic president since LBJ had the congressional experience and relationships that Biden has as well as the respect. This has made a difference. No question if Biden is the candidate he needs a younger experienced person who voters believe can carry on without missing a step.
Why you’re a professional writer and I am not can be found in this sentence: “...and his good-natured response to ugly taunts by GOP leaders in the House.”
I would have used a word other than “leaders” right there. Probably one on George Carlin’s list.
Thanks again for your wonderful daily articles.
🤣🤣🤣. Yes, I might have chosen differently. Thanks gor the chuckle.
I am also still celebrating President Biden's brilliant SOTU address. It feels so good to be led by someone that is so smart and so compassionate. He is the man of the hour and will be appreciated as one of our finest Presidents. He took the high road without backing down. The contrast between his mature adult presentation and the screaming monkeys in the audience provided a master class in owning an audience.
Last night we watched the PBS Newshour and there was an interview of the President by Judy Woodruff. It was nice to see her back in the game on an assignment basis. Judy went out on top. At 75 she stepped back and reinvented herself. The new anchors have it handled quite well, although we do miss her. But I digress.
Here is the clip of that interview. Our impression was two fold. First, we were genuinely captured by President Biden's competence and charm. Such confidence and wit. As Lindsey Graham said (before he went to the dark side). "Who doesn't love Joe Biden?"
Watch the video and then guess our second impression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UYrX7L29Us
Thanks so much, Bill, for sharing that. What a pleasure to listen to smart people talk! To see mature people allow each other to finish their sentences! And to hear them say something substantive.
I don't think either of them mentioned Fox "News" (and others of that ilk) as a major reason for the dramatic division in America. For years I have wondered aloud, "Why does Rupert Murdoch hate the United States?" My husband would laugh and say, "He doesn't hate us. But he sure loves our money!"
I hope the Democrats work on messaging, messaging, messaging. I had no idea about all the projects underway until I watched the State of the Union speech. As the benefits from successful legislation roll out, citizens need to be constantly reminded that their tax dollars are working for them. That Democrats are working for them. That Biden is working for them. I know it's over-the-top, but I'd like to see banners and billboards proclaiming BIDEN DID THIS FOR US all over the country, messages all over the internet, and commercials all over TV.
Thank you for the link, I missed that last night. Your post reminded me of the excellent interview of Biden by Heather Cox Richardson last year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Ks3BnFymQ
Thanks, Judith. I'm going to check it out.
My wife and I are in total support of Bidens Presidency and his handling of the job. And we truly like the guy.
But our second impression of this interview was not positive at all. I am close to Joe's age. But I must view him from the point of view of younger voters. His manner of speaking with Judy Woodruff was shockingly clumsy. Much of it is his speech impediment. But frankly, he didn't come across to us as a sharp 80 year old. My impression was of someone much older who may have had a stroke.
If President Biden decides to run for reelection, he will have let his ego exceed his good judgment and WE will lose.
I would much rather offer my full throated support. But to do so is to ignore reality at our peril.
Though I am grateful for his accomplishments thus far, I also agree thay Biden may not be the best Democrat to run for president in 2024. I wonder whose names come to your mind when you contemplate that primary, Bill.
Gretchen Whitmer, Corey Booker, Adam Schiff, Pritzker, Klobuchar, Polis, Newsom, Shapiro, Buttigieg for starters
And Jamie Raskin could never be beat in any debate. Our bench is deep.
Thanks so much Bill! Biden is at his best when he is interviewed and has a chance to show his depth of knowledge on governing along with his compassion for people.
I was happy to hear his comments on “the polls”. Really, how effective are those poll results given the few number of people polled, and the number of people who actually answer their phones when an unknown call comes through.
I see I am not he only one who was puzzled by he statement that sour and dour do not rhyme. Figuring my Midwest knowledge was once again behind coastal thinking I also looked it up. So who is the most confused?
All rhymes for dour - RhymeZonehttps://www.rhymezone.com › rhyme › typeofrhyme=a...
Word Rhyme rating ♫ Categories
power 100 ♫ Noun
hour 100 ♫ Noun
sour 100 ♫ Adjective
View 97 more rows
See this usage note about both being acceptable:
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/dour.html
Q: How do you pronounce “dour”? Does it have an OO or an OW sound?
A: These days, “dour” can properly be pronounced either way, to rhyme with “tour” or “tower.” But it wasn’t always so.
At one time, this adjective meaning stern, obstinate, or gloomy had only one pronunciation, the one with the OO sound.
A usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) says “dour, which is etymologically related to duress and endure, traditionally rhymes with tour.”
“The variant pronunciation that rhymes with sour is, however, widely used and must be considered acceptable,” American Heritage adds.
The dictionary says 65 percent of its Usage Panel preferred the traditional pronunciation while 33 percent preferred the variant.
I have been blissfully ignorant for about 80 years (I cannot say within a year or two when I first heard the word 'dour') so I was really surprised that there was any other way to pronounce it. Had I heard the traditional way, I would likely gone to the door to see who was there because that would have been triggered in my mind. I now have personal suspicions about the Usage Panel. Thank you for alerting me to what I must consider an elite dictionary. I wonder what would Joe say? (chuckle) .
same here...and I live in a state on the E. coast.
How sweet it is: your summary of Biden’s brilliant speech.
I thought there was little that could top Biden’s delivery of the State of the Union address to make my week. However, your review of it has now achieved that. Thank you, you have truly made my week special.
I am pretty sure you don't need grammarians correcting you, Mr. Hubbell. Really, folks (as Biden would say), you have too much time on your hands when you are working on Hubbell's grammar. Let's use the Biden speech as a launching pad for discussion of the important issues and not the circus. Focus.
I think good writers, as Robert Hubbell is, welcome corrections, whether factual or grammatical.
Robert, congratulations and thank you for encapsulating perfectly the contrast between Pres. Biden's SOTU and SHS absurd "rebuttal!" I did make myself watch it...and trust me, it was quite the deliberate effort to do so. The unquestionable peak of the absurdity was her punchline exclamation to which you provided perfect elucidation. Sanders: "The choice is between normal or crazy." You: "The line that divides America is between normal or crazy— and democracy or fascism, decency or depravity, tolerance or hate, generosity or greed, Joe Biden or Marjorie Taylor Greene."
I made numerous attempts to try and put the appropriate perspective to her LAUGH OUT LOUD line, but could not encapsulate it as perfectly as you did. She undoubtedly thought she had created a wonderful slam dunk damning catchphrase that she and Republicans could use heading into 2024. She did complete half that task...a damning catchphrase...but it cannot be used by Republicans with any seriousness. But, I can hear many a Democrat uttering those words over and over again! And, while being sure to give you a nod, they should quote your defining contrast of what her statement, despite it not being her intent, actually means.
Well done, Robert!
Democrats rightly are happy about Biden's State of the Union speech. After the 2016 election, national democrats have played their hand well, and as a result, appear to have solidified their base sufficiently to win national and state-wide elections. In his speech Tuesday, Biden gave us a blueprint for messaging and campaigning looking to the 2024 elections. Thank you.
My concern is what has not been addressed by Democrats. I feel it more than you who live in blue areas. I live in Florida, where the combination of gerrymandering, stacking of the courts, and culture war propaganda has solidified our authoritarian culture, and popularized our authoritarian governor, who is tearing down the pillars of democracy in this state.
That same thing is happening in red states all over the country. We are stuck with it for the time being.
But in swing states we have more of a chance, where I worry how those factors will affect the 2024 elections, where the red state/blue state battle is happening within these states. I do not see us figuring out how to combat the gerrymandering and culture wars in red areas in those states.
I am convinced that the gloating and laughing about the behavior of the extremists in Congress is not a good way to follow up on Biden's success. All it does is reinforce the feeling by working class Americans who are voting for extreme right-wing candidates, that the elitists in Congress and the media do not relate to their lives.
Read Ezra Klein's book, "Why we are Polarized". It sets out what we are up against. It is a mistake to believe that the most important swing voters in swing states will vote blue if we continue to make fun of and marginalize MAGA-type supporters.
We cannot control the effect of conservative judges or gerrymandering, but we can control how we relate to people who are attracted to DeSantis and Trump. We should take a page from President Biden.
You write: I am convinced that the gloating and laughing about the behavior of the extremists in Congress is not a good way to follow up on Biden's success.
I hope you don't t think I "gloated and laughed" and the behavior of extremists in Congress. That wasn't my intent, and I just re-read my column and I don't see it. Instead, I condemned the behavior of extremists in Congress. If we can't do that because we are afraid of bruising the feelings of people who applaud such behavior, then we are doomed. We cannot accept such behavior as normal. Do we want our children and grandchildren to act that way in school and at a city council meeting?
I do not think that of your newsletter today. I love the way you frame things and often forward your newsletter to others. You were just playing off of the Republican response to the State of the Union.
I wrote because I was listening to Morning Joe, and many at the table this morning were laughing and opining that the Republicans are so out of touch and they were expressing their usual characterizations of the extreme right. I think they are out of touch if they think making fun of MAGA supporters and legislators will help with the swing voters in swing states, which is my concern for 2024. I think they also believe that the extreme right behavior will cause swing voters to vote Democratic. I think that assessment is incorrect. I think working people love it when MAGA people act out, because they see it as "owning the libs", who they perceive as elite.
That is why the manner in which Biden comes across is more effective than many progressives, who alternately want to "educate" people, or make fun of them. Whenever our words or behavior is condescending to people, we lose.
Judy, I feel your pain as I’m in a red county here where our governor has already ascended to the presidency with his recent claims of “ executive privilege”.
I appreciate Robert’s ( what I consider appropriate) levity and his daily posts serve to encourage my activism. I don’t believe he in any way is encouraging me to make fun or marginalize MAGA supporters. Although I do believe he effectively points out the hypocrisy of the GOP leaders.
I am not worried about the way in which Robert frames things. I love how he writes. I worry about the talking heads on TV who are calling the right wing republicans out of touch with the mainstream, with crazy qanon threories, etc. I worry about my fellow activists who want to "educate" people and lecture people about the right way to think, or make fun of the MAGA crowd. It is just not a good election strategy, There are alot of people assuming swing voters in swing states will be turned off by investigations of Hunter's laptop. I am not so sure.
Agreed that we should try to counter the lies and disinformation without alienating some swing voters.
An article in the Sentinel this week discussed close races that Dems should have won handily in Osceola. Apparently Repubs were also canvassing Dems. It would be interesting to know what they said.🤔
I received an email from my Freedom Caucus Rep yesterday⬇️
“My position always has been, and remains the same: I believe that there should be NO changes to Medicare or Social Security for those in or near retirement.”
Of course they can’t propose/facilitate changes to those in or near retirement….just for those kids and grandkids.
Stay sane in the “Freedom” state !
Ezra Klein's book is really interesting. I took a lot from that. My strongest impression is that we should avoid alienating type of exchanges and focus on creating alternate ways to frame the issues, ignoring the culture war discussions, and hope that younger people will be drawn to how we discuss things and act on their behalf.
Note the wiggle room your Rep. provides himself/herself: "....for those in or near retirement." They still will do their best to reduce SS & Medicare benefits for those not yet "near" retirement. One proposal voiced has been to raise the age for qualifying to 70. Even by age 65, there are far too many Americans too sick or too poor, seriously needing income from SS and coverage from Medicare and, as recently reported, average life spans of Americans have decreased quite a bit which would mean that many Americans might only be able to collect on these programs to which they have paid into their entire working life.
“The choice is between normal or crazy.” Exactly, crazy, bizarre, lying “witch.” I thought that in 2016. Well, to be honest, in 2000, But then, I have NEVER forgotten that the propaganda machine has been churning on for decades. This for the benefit for the great unwashed, but the drivers know exactly what they are doing. Chump taught them best. The end justifies the means, no matter how grotesque