Sunday, September 11, 2016

Ginning up the game

Image result for john heilemann    

Image result for ej dionne

Sigh....  Back when I watched television, 4+ years ago, I enjoyed hearing what John Heileman offered to political discussions; my John & I liked EJ Dionne so much, we referred to him as "Uncle EJ" (for his reassuring style).

Both men have disappointed me, big time.

Guys - criticize Hillary for overstating how many deplorable types are supporting Donald Trump; 50% was too large a number to cite, even if it is true, for her not to expect major blowback (unless that's what she wants!).  But John claiming that it "could kind of justify that, where she had said anything that actually kind of met the dictionary definition of bigoted" has me shaking my head in disbelief.  Et tu, John?  You are getting downright Trump-like in your disjointed thinking.  Pathetic.

Per Merriam-Webster, a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Hillary called out 50% of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables" because a significant number - including his campaign manager - openly embrace beliefs once considered way out on the fringe, like white supremacy & blanket intolerance of those deemed "as deplorable.

Listening to John & later to EJ, it's pathetically clear those days are past.  The media is mute when Trump uses inaccurate inflammatory incendiary graphics from a far right wing website like InfoWars, whose founder, Alex Jones, proudly claims to be one of Trump's advisors.  David Duke counts himself a keen Trump supporter - inspired by his candidate's open embrace of once verboten white supremacist memes, he too is running for high office.  Donald himself touts that millions follow him, trusting him to throw "Make America White Great Again," tossing out those who are here illegally - and their American citizen offspring, to keep out anyone who doesn't agree with our views, to restore our country to "one nation, one flag, one God." Those are beliefs the average American would have reviled nine years ago. 

If Hillary had condemned all Trump supporters, I can understand why John would have called her condemning, even intolerant. But even if that had been the case, "bigot" still wouldn't fit.  It was lazy lazy lazy on John's part.

And EJ backed him up!

Gentlemen, you are a disappointment.  Above all, intellectually.  Your fumbling the word indicates minds wretchedly dulled by an inane season, keen insights blunted by the need to not see what's right in front of you, perceptions clouded by an overload of bombast.

EJ commented that if Hillary hadn't come out swinging, "We might now be talking about Trump's love affair with Vladimir Putin... Instead, we're talking about this."

Tsk, tsk, tsk...   That was your choice.  You could have talked about Donald Trump & Pam Bondi, you could have talked about his disjointed answers at the Commander-in-Chief Forum, about him INSULTING our nation's military leaders, his obvious lack of the vaunted PLAN to DEFEAT ISIS, about the difference between how Matt Lauer treated the two candidates, about DJT referring to listening to HRC's responses at the Forum.  You could have discussed the fall-out of Hillary's comments, using words that did dovetail with the points you sought to make. 

You could have, and didn't, discuss what we once expected from both of - matters of substance.

Instead, you fell prey to trying out for the current new political sport - pretzeling yourselves into contortions of reality, convolutions of the truth.  And for what end?  To gin up the game, to make it more newsworthy, thus better view bait? 

after thought - When I look at John's wording, his disjointed phrasing, his flagrant misuse of an emotionally charged word, at EJ backing him up & blaming Hillary for them pummeling her statement in lieu of discussing matters of actual substance - well, am reminded of something my dear old mother would say:  the subpar & inferior is more likely to drag down the above par & superior than the other way around.  I think about reading the TEXT of DJT's comments at the Commander-in-Chief Forum - which is when the full impact of his disconnected, erratic stream-of-unconsciousness thinking hits home - & then I think about John Heilemann, about EJ Dionne... How right she was!

No comments:

Post a Comment