In these days of woke Hollywood, even famous people dare not outdo women. If they do, they receive the wrath of 1,000 think pieces about how poorly women are treated in Tinseltown. Yep, Hollywood is racist and sexist and discriminates against conservatives. The media are upset by two of those. I bet you can guess which ones. But Wahlberg (nee Marky Mark) is being reviled because he did something smart. And because he’s conservative.
Salon's Marcotte has some advice for Ben Sasse: There's no future in being the respectable face of the Party of Deplorables. In a Wednesday piece, Marcotte pooh-poohed the idea that it might be worth Sasse's while to primary President Trump in 2020. She did so partly because the Nebraska senator is "less than worthless" as an anti-Trumper, partly because Sasse's image as "a man of courage and integrity" is "utter malarkey," but mostly because new-school Republicans like unadorned cruelty and ignorance, and Sasse won't quite go there.
On Tuesday, Daily Kos founder and publisher Markos Moulitsas instructed Democrats that the first rule of Impeachment Club is that you do not talk about Impeachment Club, at least in mixed company. "The signs are clear we are headed for a massive Democratic wave" in the midterm elections, exulted Kos, but he warned that for the wave to crash, Dems first need to "avoid issues that energize conservatives," most of all one mega-issue: "Talking about impeachment in campaign settings effectively puts Trump on the ballot. And if Trump is on the ballot? His supporters will turn out. We don’t want his supporters to turn out. We want them home, sulking about the swamp and how McConnell and Ryan have stood in the way of Trump’s efforts to Make America Great."
In a late Saturday morning column, wannabe constitutional scholars Ed Asner and Ed. Weinberger (yes, there's a period after his first name) weighed in on the Founders' intent relating to citizens' right to bear arms. Asner and Weinberger, an actor and a comedy joke and script writer, respectively, in real life, deigned to tell us that the Second Amendment was really a gun control measure designed to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who wasn't a member of a militia.
Matt Lauer. Charlie Rose. Bill O’Reilly. Mark Halperin. Any one of those guys is just like the others in two important and intertwined ways, suggested Salon’s Marcotte on Wednesday: each is an alleged sexual harasser who has lost at least one high-profile media gig as a result, and each had a sexist fixation on Hillary Clinton’s “nothing-burger” e-mails.
She lost what most had considered a guaranteed nomination in 2008. In 2016 she spent twice as much as Donald Trump on her campaign, was endorsed by almost every newspaper in the country, and had a solid wall of full support from the mainstream media which constantly recited that Trump had "no path to 270." And yet HIllary Clinton lost the election. So what conclusion would you draw? Well, if you are Salon writer Matthew Rozsa you would conclude that Hillary should run again in 2020.
Rozsa gives us four, count them...four, reasons which could substitute as laugh lines as to why Hillary should turn herself into the Democrat party version of Harold Staasen and run for president once again. He presented his comedy routine on November 24 in The case for Hillary Clinton 2020:
The media love to push sexuality onto audiences, using entertainment to make it seem attractive. But what if those in entertainment don’t want to play into a progressive narrative?
Over the weekend, liberal online magazine Salon put out a highly mockable list of their top “25 Conservatives Actually Worth Following on Twitter.” The story made a splash on social media, because it seemed Salon’s only criteria for being a “worthy conservative” is that you had to be an outspoken “Never-Trumper” and a frequent, fierce critic of the right.
One of the reasons we call liberals the alt-left is their opposition to anything traditional or normal -- like free speech, patriotism or marriage. Marriage has been a particular target of the left for many years. Forget the campaign for gay marriage. The left hates the institution, but it’s easier to wreck it from within than without. As The Establishment puts it, “marriage sits at the red-hot heart of our, ahem, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.”
Liberals who can’t win at the ballot box, turn to lawyers to push their agenda. And guns are no exception. The alt-left has always been the Sue Tribe, they’ve just gotten worse over time.
In the aftermath of the horrendous shooting in Las Vegas, the left has turned to an old standby, gun control. Only gone is their facade about guns. Now they want to take them, ban them or sue to shut down the companies that make them.
Earlier this month, I wrote an op-ed for The Hill where I argued that Republicans should support President Trump and follow his electoral formula, or “die” — i.e., face extinction as a party. The piece had an obvious target audience — establishment Republicans — with an obvious goal in mind — to get wishy-washy GOP elected officials on board with the President’s agenda.
On Sunday, Salon's Jefferson Morley contended that the United States adopted the "Star Spangled Banner" as its national anthem due to an ascendant "neo-Confederate spirit" during the decades after the Civil War. Morley played up that "observing Memorial Day and singing 'The Star-Spangled Banner' are uncontroversial patriotic gestures, yet there is no disputing that neo-Confederates developed these rituals."