In reading Daniel Henninger’s most recent column in the Wall Street Journal mostly my eyes just glazed over. I know that he likes Republicans, doesn’t like Democrats, etc.
Except when reading one sentence and this is it:
Which is to say, if the alt-right flirts with white nationalism, the alt-left always conducts politics at the edge of violence, such as the trashing last month of UC Berkeley.
Is that empirically correct? The answer is important.
My impression is that the Tea Party ≠ alt-right and Bernie Bros ≠ alt-left and that the Tea Party movement, at least originally, was a genuine grass-roots movement while there has always been a lot of astroturf in the various left-leaning attempts to replicate the Tea Party’s successes? Is that wrong?
Meanwhile, the other day I was sitting in the waiting area of a tire store and the guy I was sitting next to casually mentioned that his daughter aspired to be a professional demonstrator. I can’t help but feel that’s the political equivalent of the shoeshine boy offering stock tips.
I think grassroots vs AstroTurf is in fact correct. However, I would also note that anytime you approach boundaries in politics you will get the ideological crazies and the “nothing better to do” professional agitators coming out of the woodwork. It gets ugly.
What amazes me right now in the Sessions case is just how deeply the craziness goes. To make a case of wrongdoing requires a tortured interpretation of an answer rarely seen in anything but drunken bar room arguments, a totally selective memory and invoking of standards, and willful suspension of knowledge and understanding of the well known duties of a senator with Sessions’ titles. And yet we have one of our own shreaking like a madman about treason, and Doug reporting the particulars like a mindless robot rather than with any context or nuance. Pedantic would be charitable. How deep does this derangement go? And who is behind all this? Is it really a former President of the United States? Let that sink in.
Only time will tell, but this has losing strategy written all over it. Democrats are counting on the usual Republicans with tiny balls like Lindsey Graham, to stretch out this charade. Release the smoke and turn the mirrors and all will be well. And yet what actual evidence is there of collusion by campaign operatives with the Russians, or any effectiveness of such collusion. Well, there is none. Zip. Zero. What they have is a press willing to repeat allegations over and over. That’s it. I’m not sure they have, again, gaged the public mood well. Just their fellow bubble dwellers. And I think they have failed to understand the correlation between hand size and……well.
There is a threat of violence in all extremism. Idiots on the right were protesting with rifles, calling for the tree of liberty to be watered with the blood of tyrants. I’m not going to say both sides do it — humans do it, regardless of side. The notion of nonviolent protest is really very recent, and it only holds when people think they are being listened to.
—
I don’t know how anyone could think the recent protests are AstroTurf — when Trump’s immigration order went out, people were protesting in airports across the country in a matter of hours. Who has all those protesters on retainer?
That was clearly driven by social networks — Facebook and the like, by people, as it happened — not by Soros Protests Inc.
Soros’s life ambition seems to be creating chaos wherever a vulnerability arises to insert himself financially, in order to augment his own ideology and personal business interests. Basically, he’s a rich opportunist who generously uses his wealth to amplify a world vision, which includes drug legalization, open borders and a strong social progressive presence.
There are so many organizations under Soros’s funding umbrella, with his Open Society Foundation (OSF) being one of the most well known. It’s through this foundation that he alone gave $33 million dollars, in one year, assisting in inflaming and prolonging the riots and protests in Ferguson. This has been collaborated by OSF’s tax filings and findings exposed in Snopes.
As for the seemingly spontaneous airport protests, erupting after Trump’s EO, this too has OSF’s fingerprints all over it.
Drew has to ignore so much to defend Sessions,but of course I knew he was capable of it. First, as long as Trump does not reveal his tax returns, even though he promised to do so, we won’t know his degree of financial involvement with Russia. While it is actually touching and charming in a way that such a man of the world as Drew has complete and total faith in Trump’s honesty, a lot of us don’t. Next remember that Trump actually encouraged the Russians to interfere with the election. (Just a joke? Sure.) Next, Sessions was the only member of the Armed Forces Committee to meet with the ambassador. Last of all, Sessions gave a very lawyerly answer to his questions, just like the Clintons you so hate. Why hide the fact that he did meet with them, but that was part of his job, if that was truly the case? He did think it was relevant? BS
To be clear, I have no idea if he is guilty of anything, but neither does anyone else. That is why it should be investigated. Also, I take it as a good sing that Sessions has recused himself. That shows some actual integrity, something I thought was missing among our lawyer-politicians.
As to the topic, I don’t think the claim is entirely correct or incorrect. The left has always had stronger representation among younger people, especially on campuses. They sometimes get rowdy. However, the right has a lot of violence that simply isn’t recognized as it is institutional. You have National Guard troops kill people or police or security guards or make it legal for the right kind of people to kill the wrong kind of people, even if they are unarmed.
Steve
What would you say if Trump is right? That Obama has not retired and is active in Political organization and agitation to thwart Trump’s objectives. Has Valerie Jar-rat not moved into his home?
We have a new President, and he needs to clean house.
Steve, I know it’s incumbent upon your almost blind faith in the democrat party that every smear, allegation (supported or unsupported by evidence), every tongue in cheek remark, if it involves someone officially affiliated with the Republican party, is associated with evil-doing.
Photos, earlier Dem tweets, even the same Russian ambassador, said to have met with Sessions, is pictured at Trump’s congressional speech sitting with and openly smoozing with Dems, indicating a cozy Russian-democrat party relationship. Should all these Dems be investigated, recused from any Russian inquiry by our government, or subjected to calls for their resignation? Furthermore, where was your indignation when HRC’s private server was hacked, exposing national security data to foreign players? Where was your concern when Huma Abedine negligently left government laptops behind in both Russian and Chinese hotels? Or, what about all those Clinton/Russian connections, including a half million dollar Moscow speech given by Bill, associated with the SOS, Hillary, approving a uranium deal with Russia? Or, what about Hillary Clinton’s pal, John Podesta and his brother Tony, and their close relationship to Viktor Vekselberg, someone with ties to Russian military intelligence and ower of Skokovo, a Russian foundation set in Silicon Valley designed as technology transfer scheme, while HRC was SOS.
In fact the list of questionable actions, ties, associations are scattered throughout the history of the Democrat party. Ted Kennedy, comes to mind, when he actively conspired with Russia to deep-six Reagan’s election. But, no, what you seem stuck on are insignificant random meetings between Sessions and one gadfly Russian ambassador, with nary a raised eyebrow to your own party’s many and far more serious Russian transgressions.
This what you said.
“if it involves someone officially affiliated with the Republican party, is associated with evil-doing.”
This is what I said.
“To be clear, I have no idea if he is guilty of anything, but neither does anyone else. That is why it should be investigated.”
I hope that I don’t have to elaborate.
Next-“Photos, earlier Dem tweets, even the same Russian ambassador, said to have met with Sessions, is pictured at Trump’s congressional speech sitting with and openly smoozing with Dems, indicating a cozy Russian-democrat party relationship.”
I have no problem with our officials publicly interacting with officials from other countries. Now, please explain to me how that is the same thing as campaign representatives during an election meeting privately and secretly with officials from there countries, and then either lying about it or giving evasive, lawyerly answers?
The Clinton speeches in Russia? Alright, that got tons of coverage. You guys questioned whether pay for play was going on. It was investigated. Now pretty much the same thing happens, but you don’t want your guy investigated. Got it.
Steve
The original tea party was a “get the banksters who destroyed the economy via their CDOs and CDS’s ” movement. Until the Kochs coopted it.
Sessions meetings involved a speech by him where the Russian ambassador was one of many ambassadors who approached him following his speech at the Heritage Foundation. The second incident called into question was approximately 10 minutes, in his own office with several aides present, having an alleged discussion regarding Sessions disagreement with Russia’s policy towards Ukraine. Being on the Armed Services Committee, such a conversation seems totally appropriate.
Furthermore, these two meetings seemed so inconsequential, as to the scope of the question being asked by Frankel (seeking any linkage between a Russian diplomat and Sessions regarding the Trump campaign), not only because of the public places they took place in and the short duration of time spent with the Russian ambassador, but also because these interactions happeded during Sessions senate tenure where there is no proof of any conversations relating to Trump’s presidential campaign. So far this episode targeting Sessions for 2 Russian interactions seems more like character assassination and political diversion, than triggered by real events meriting real suspicions.
Here is more info on those “clandestine” Sessions/Russian meetings:
jan-These are versions according to Sessions. He says he was acting as a rep of the Armed Forces Committee. If he was actually meeting with him to do something nefarious, isn’t that what he would claim? Perfect cover. If this all innocent, then why not speak up and say so when he was asked. The guy is supposedly bright enough to be Attorney General. My guess is that it is likely that he didn’t think anyone would care and that it might look bad so he just didn’t bring it up. However, it is always trying to hide stuff that gets you in trouble. He should have just openly owned it. “Yes, I spoke with the Russian Ambassador twice while I was a campaign rep. No, it was not about anything wrong. Here are my witnesses, etc.”
Then you have to place it in context. Another Trump appointee also lied about having contact with Russians. Trump himself is rumored to have financial ties with Russia, which he could easily disprove, but won’t, when he actually promised to provide that evidence. Why has he backed off of that promise?
It seems pretty clear it should be investigated. As you might recall, I also supported an investigation of Clinton. You just wanted to declare her guilty IIRC.
Steve
“You have National Guard troops kill people or police or security guards or make it legal for the right kind of people to kill the wrong kind of people, even if they are unarmed.”
Are you reading Alex Jones now?