All Tapped Out

Jake Tapper's new book, co-written by Alex Thompson, chronicling the so-called cover-up of Joe Biden's lack of fitness to run for another term, reminds me how much I've disliked Tapper (below) since 2017, when he made fun of former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley's tweet comparing the MAGA movement to the Klan and to Nazis and calling on people to fight.  Tapper's and Thompson's book makes the argument that Biden more or less gave the Presidency back to Trump by insisting on running again in 2024 and denying rank-and-file Democrats the chance to find another candidate to take his place, with Democrats in Washington, D.C. concealing his deteriorating physical and mental condition.

In no way am I suggesting that Biden was correct in choosing to stand for re-election in 2024.  I'm not even suggesting that Biden was wrong to do so; given the dearth of appealing candidates who could have competed for the chance to be the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee (Gretchen Whitmer, who loves to hide her face behind a binder in embarrassing moments?  Josh Shapiro, who had just been elected governor of Pennsylvania and had no track record yet?  Gavin Newsom, the Gary Hart of Generation X - all style and no substance?), Biden likely felt he had no choice but to run again.   But even though I did believe that he should have stepped down and concluded that he must have known what he was doing once he chose to do otherwise, and therefore I was all in for him until he decided he wasn't all in for us and let Kamala Harris take the reins, none of what Biden did do or should have done has no bearing now.  Tapper and Thompson are only putting out this book to please Tapper's corporate bosses at CNN, who have been making it clear for quite some time that they want to be in solid with Trump, whose own dementia and involuntary napping have been on display for the past four or five years.  Yet no one in the mainstream media seems to want to talk about that.  Since the mainstream press is too busy normalizing Trump, they (and not just CNN in this case) are all too happy to please Trump and MAGA by picking on Biden.

So you can imagine my reaction when it was reported yesterday that Biden has an aggressive form of prostate cancer and can do no more than manage it to keep himself alive.

My sorrow for Biden is only matched by my sense of schadenfreude toward Tapper and Thompson.  They wanted to get in on the lucrative pastime of picking on Joe Biden for making a decision he clearly felt was the right decision at the time - running for a second presidential term in 2024 (and, again, given the possibility of a Newsom nomination, who could blame Biden for his decision?) - and just as their precious book is going to press, Biden's cancer diagnosis makes their book look more like a cynical, venal, disrespectful cash-in than it already did (and was).  Even more so, it makes Tapper and Thompson look unseemly and kind of cretinous.

But, seeing as I don't watch cable news anymore and turn instead to independent podcast media, that's none of my business. 

I wish Joe Biden the best.  Excuse me for not wishing the same to Tapper and Thompson.

No Holds Barred

Attorney General William Barr (below) testified before the House Judiciary Committee this past Tuesday, and I'll give him this much - despite fears to the contrary, he showed up.

But as to the question of whether the Democrats or Barr and his fellow Republicans made the case for Barr's heavy-handed response to people demonstrating against racial injustice,  his recommendation against a seven-to-nine year jail sentence for Roger Stone, or the Russia probe investigation, I fear that Barr and his congressional allies may have made the better arguments - mainly by lying and obfuscating at loud volumes and with righteous indignation.  Barr defended his recommendation on Stone's prison sentence, citing his age, and he maintained that force from the civilian government agents in Portland was necessary to protect the courthouse from the more violent elements of the demonstrations, whose rights to free speech he supported so long as they were peaceful.  And GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee backed him up with their spins on the issues, as well as displaying  eager anticipation of the report on the Russia probe investigation. 

The Democrats landed some effective punches, such as Representative Jerrold Nadler (NY) citing the mothers, veterans and public officials that make up many of the peaceful demonstrators against racial injustice, as well as Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) going after Barr for not hiring any black aides while trying to sound sanctimonious in invoking the recently deceased John Lewis (still lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda during the hearing).  Democratic Representative Joe Neguse (CO) even got Barr to suggest that former New York District Attorney Geoffrey Berman resigned without knowing it, a preposterous idea.  But Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) and his opening salvo in the form of an eight-minute montage video that contrasted TV news reporters and commentators talking about "peaceful demonstrators" with scenes of violent confrontations seemed to overshadow all that.  And why not?  It had more noise and chaos than another famous eight-minute montage, "Revolution 9."

Take this, brother, may it serve you well.

Democratic Representative David Cicilline (RI) countered Jordan's video montage with one of his own, showing still pictures from the same demonstrations featuring peaceful protesters.  Too bad one of those still pictures - which aren't as effective as videos - showed one demonstrator holding up a sing with an obscenity on it.

It was left to CNN's Jake Tapper to point out that Jordan had marshaled and edited clips for his video selectively without offering the comments from reporters and commentators about peaceful demonstrators in their proper context, with Tapper showed the original news clips to illustrate that these reporters and commentators, some of whom were Tapper's coworkers, were saying that the demonstrations mostly peaceful but turned violent when provoked by federal agents.  Yes, but how many people are going to pay attention to Jake Tapper? Jordan's' tactic was slimy propaganda but smart politics.

Hopefully, a few days or so will shed more light on how evasive and arrogant Barr and his Republican defenders were and make them look more preposterous than they already do.  But for Trump supporters - still comprising two-fifths of the electorate, making them a dangerous, large minority - evasion and arrogance are badges of honor. 

Scare Away the Snark

I couldn't take it any more.

After watching Donald Trump as President, and especially after seeing him rip the Paris climate accord to shreds, I could no longer limit my anger toward all the pundits, reporters, and commentators who ridiculed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley (above, obviously) and undermined his own political viability to rants about them on this blog.  I decided to respond to some of them directly.

A little late, I know, as these condescending comments about O'Malley were made months ago, during and immediately after the election campaign.  But in light of Trump's utter failure as a President and as a human being - and in recognition of the possibility that O'Malley could have been the 2016 Democratic nominee and defeated Trump if the press hadn't marginalized him - it seems appropriate to respond to these naysayers now.  And just remember, the mainstream press gave Trump free media by covering him so extensively, so they're to blame for Trump as much as the Democratic National Committee is for rigging the primaries and caucuses for Hillary Clinton.  Maybe more so.

First, Joanna Rothkopf.  Rothkopf edits Jezebel.com, a women's-interests blog, and she used that platform in the fall of 2015 to belittle O'Malley for appearing on "The View" and singing and playing on his guitar a Taylor Swift song to connect with female voters.  She specifically said that O'Malley was proof that "a white man who is eager to play his guitar in public belongs in one of the deepest circles of Hell." Well, I found this snooty little excuse for a commentator on LinkedIn, and I wrote to her, saying, "I was a Martin O'Malley supporter, and you are a goddamned idiot!"

I also expressed regret that she thinks that all the great sixties and seventies classic rockers are going to Hell.

Next, Molly Ball.  Ball wrote a favorable profile piece about O'Malley in 2014 in the Atlantic, for whom she works, but a year later, she acted like she'd never heard of him when discussing a Democratic forum in November 2015 on CBS and then later ridiculed O'Malley's attempts to be heard at a subsequent Democratic presidential debate in which moderator John Dickerson was clearly trying to ignore him.  Having found her Atlantic e-mail address, I wrote to her and made it clear that  I was not amused by any of this.

"You, Ms. Ball," I also wrote, "acted like someone else wrote this profile article under your byline without your knowledge - that sort of 180-degree turn against people in public service that makes voters turn against the media. Nor did I appreciate your apparent snark in your comments about O'Malley when discussing him on CBS or responding to John Dickerson's treatment of him during the CBS debate. I'm only writing this now in 2017 because, having seen Donald Trump in action and having just seen him withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate change agreement, I am extremely ticked off with how the media laughed O'Malley out of the race even as they gave Trump so much free media. Your and other reporters' cavalier dismissal of someone who could have defeated Trump in the 2016 general election - we know now Hillary Clinton could not have - did a great disservice to democracy and to the nation. I am sickened by all of the snark that my candidate received. Your attitude did not help."

And how about CNN's Jake Tapper?  When O'Malley refused to entertain thoughts of reconciliation with Trump and his supporters, saying in a Twitter message that no one opposed to fascism in Europe and to racism in the South talked of reconciliation and adding that it was time to fight, Tapper tweeted back, "What exactly do you mean by 'fight,' here, governor?"

What the hell did Tapper think he meant?  O'Malley meant it was time to fight, something his fellow Democrats don't seem to be able to do these days (not one Republican House or Senate seat has been flipped in a special congressional election since November 2016).  "What do you want Martin to do," I wrote to Tapper via Twitter, "lay down with candles in the rain?"  

Well, these are the examples of snark against O'Malley that I remember best, but if I tried to respond to every slight against him, I'd get carpal tunnel syndrome.  Rest assured, though, if I see or hear any more pundits go after O'Malley in the future - and I know that is going to happen - they can expect a pretty fierce rebuttal in one form or another.  

I know - "What exactly do you mean by 'fierce,' here, Steve?"

What do you think I mean?  Just read the above comments again.

And eat your Pop-Tarts!