What an odd election! Worlds are being remade before our eyes, yet many writers cannot adapt to the new conditions. To see an example of what I mean, go here
Basically, the anti-Trump conservatives have latched onto my earlier post
, which exposed the lie that Ted Cruz' phone number was found within the records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the late DC Madam. I posit that this smear was engineered by Trump's toady Roger Stone -- mostly because Stone and his partner Robert Morrow seem to be obsessed
with sex. (Stone was the guy who sicced the FBI on Elliot Spitzer; Morrow spread all of those ridiculous stories about Rick Perry's alleged bisexuality.)
As things stand, we have no evidence that Cruz ever had anything to do with the girls who worked for Pamela Martin and Associates. Maybe we'll get some evidence to that effect in the future, but right now -- and despite what that Trumpian hordes would have you believe -- we have nada.
Okay, you folks already knew that stuff. Right now, let's look at the way the Cruz Kids have made use of my post:
Don’t fall for liberal lies and please do the research before just believing everything you read on the internet.
"liberal lies"? No liberal site known to me has pushed the Cruz/Palfrey myth.
The only "liberal" who bothered to pay attention to this particular smear was little ol' me
, and I'm the guy who argued that the whole thing was fake.
You can't really blame the writer at the other end of that link for acting true to his programming. His mind has fastened onto two simple equations: Liberal=bad
. If the dog soils the rug, the dog has had a liberal moment. If the dog fetches the slippers, the dog suddenly becomes a conservative again. If you spend a decade watching Fox and listening to Rush, those two equations get etched into your psyche.
But that simplistic outlook won't work in this election.
The Trump forces -- not "the liberal media" -- spread this smear, and they will undoubtedly spread others. Roger Stone is certainly no liberal. Gateway Pundit (which pushed the Palfrey myth) is definitely un-liberal. The websites which assailed Cruz also spew anti-Muslim hysteria. Both the Trumpians and the Cruzites accuse each other of being "cuckservatives."
Lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley is a prominent anti-Obama birther. No liberal believes in birtherism. I was a vehement anti-Obama liberal in 2008, yet I despised birtherism from the very beginning, and tried my best to strangle the beast while it was still in its crib.
It must be hard for Cruz supporters to come to grips with the fact that the world has become so complicated.
I have this message for those who cuddle up to Cruz: You have enemies to your right and
to your left. That's just the way things are right now.
And guess what? The same damnable complexity holds true on the left side of the aisle.
About Bernie: The Berniebots are insufferable right now
. While the Wisconsin win will not necessarily translate into a New York win, I'm nevertheless predicting that Sanders will nab the nomination.
Why? Because it is my habit to predict that the worst-case scenario will come true. Besides, I can sense the way the wind is blowing throughout the media, and the winds of Clinton-hate have become a tornado.
We saw a similar tornado in 2008, when we were repeatedly assured that Obama would be the Great Progressive Messiah. (And how did that
turn out?) We also saw this kind of tornado in 2000, when all good progs believed Al Gore to be the Devil Incarnate. (And how did that
It should be obvious to one and all by now: When you see that kind of tornado brewing, go the other way
. If the media stands behind your guy, then your guy is the bad
guy. You need no further indicators: Your guy is the bad guy.
An exchange in the comments section may deserve to be repeated here. A reader code-named Quasiblotto wrote the following:
As a side conversation, I personally don't agree with the idea that a socialist could not win the election. (Not a Bernie-bot, by the way... never phone banked, or talked anyone's ear off, or even posted any pro-Bernie anything... or donated...)
My response (somewhat rewritten, mostly for clarity):
8 years ago, I commented on a post of yours regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in which you said, to effect, that this was it, no way Obama could get into the White House now, not with this kind of a connection. "God damn America" and all that (even though the soundbite, taken within context, wasn't that crazy...). Yet, here we are. Not that I'm any prognosticator, but I actually think the republicans are more scared of Bernie than Hillary in many ways, and I think he could outperform her in the general. All they have on the guy is 'socialist=communist,' which I don't honestly think goes that far any more, especially once people hear his (repetitive, but largely righteous) message. I think the 'trust' factor shouldn't be underestimated. Hillary's political skill is pretty alluring at times, but her record is so spotty, and she's turned off so many. Regardless, I'm voting for a blue D this fall.
Quasi, I think you are being silly. You say: "All they have on the guy is 'socialist=communist,' which I don't honestly think goes that far any more..."
OH YES IT DOES.
The fact that you haven't seen the media use that particular cudgel yet
is the only clue you need: The fix is in for Bernie. The mainstream media and the progressive media will continue to back Sanders right up until the moment he secures the nomination.
You really think that the Republicans are scared
of Sanders? What nonsense!
I know what the media landscape looks like when the Powers That Be want someone to die politically. What's happening to Bernie right now looks nothing like that.
Bernie Sanders is getting nothing but journalistic fellatio.
Look at the headlines, look at the coverage, look at the way he is being treated on teevee. And look at the way comments are being rigged all over the internet. When you see the same comment running under various bylines in various venues, you know that the fix is in.
The fix is in FOR Sanders and AGAINST Hillary.
I've seen just TWO pro-Hillary pieces in recent weeks, and they were both slapped down pretty hard by the readers (many of whom were probably bots). During the same period, I've seen scads of Sanders puff-pieces.
When Sanders gets the nomination, the media will suddenly turn against him.
Here's how it will go down: Venues like Time
and The Atlantic
will run major articles that hardly mention Sanders at all. These will be historical pieces with titles like "THE VICTIMS OF SOCIALISM." All of the facts and figures contained therein will come from sources like The Black Book of Communism
Suddenly, we'll hear a lot about the famine in Ukraine. Modern Ukrainians will get on teevee and say: "God forbid we return to those days."
You'll hear much about the victims of Mao. The Gulags, of course. Pol Pot.
There will be anti-socialist "experts" everywhere
. You will see them every time you turn on the television, spewing all sorts of spurious facts and questionable history. Mercilessly attacking all
forms of socialism, they will not rest until the American public equates Olaf Plame with Josef Stalin.
Of course, we will have a resurrection of the canard that the Hitler was a socialist: "It's right in the name -- National SOCIALIST!" Do you remember that meme from a few years back? It will return. Guaranteed.
The first to turn against Bernie will be young voters, because they are the most historically ignorant, the most easily gulled sector of the electorate. It was young people who fell most readily for the "Hitler was a left-winger" propaganda campaign. Many people under 30 are so fucking stupid they can't even tell you which World War was the one in which America fought Nazi Germany.
The journalists covering Bernie Sanders will suddenly grow fangs, the way Christopher Lee did in those old Hammer movies.
The model for the "Get Bernie" movement will be the "Get Finkelstein" campaign. Do you recall what happened to Norman Finkelstein after he wrote The Holocaust Industry
? He was subjected to some truly horrifying
The interviewer would ask: "So you're saying that the Holocaust was just a myth?"
And Finkelstein would answer: No, this is not true. I lost much of my family in the Holocaust...
"So...you are NOT saying that the Holocaust is a myth?"
Finkelstein would repeat his answer, trying not to become testy.
Interviewer (even more suspiciously):
"So despite the title of your book, NOW you are saying that you DON'T think that the Holocaust is a myth?"
Finkelstein would repeat his answer, trying not to become testy.
Interviewer (even MORE suspiciously):
"You've been repeatedly accused of being a Holocaust denier. Why are you now changing your story?"
The exchange would go on and on like that. Even a bright guy like Norman Finkelstein could not figure out a way to escape that tar pit.
Finkelstein has claimed in lectures that his career opportunities suddenly became very limited, because nobody wants to hire a Holocaust denier.
Something similar will happen to Sanders, once our presstitutes decide to turn their guns on him. Bet on it. Here's a sample of what he'll have to deal with, each and every time you see his face on teevee:
"So, Senator Sanders, you're saying that you do NOT believe in re-education camps...?"
"So, Senator Sanders, you're now claiming that you don't want to replace the free enterprise system?"
"So, Senator Sanders, why do you feel that small businesses should be taken over by the government...?"
"So, Senator Sanders, will you finally apologize for supporting communist dictators like Daniel Ortega...?"
I almost WANT to see Bernie get the nomination, just to watch it happen. I'd love to see the look on Bernie's face when the media's Big Blowjob turns into a Big BITE.
Always remember one of the great rules of electoral politics: If you're defending, you're losing.
The electoral college blowout will make 1972 seem pleasant. That's a mortal lock. A political absolute. California and New York will turn into red states, thanks to the prog purists who cannot tolerate anyone named Clinton.
By the way: If Obama had not thrown Wright under the bus rather rudely and harshly, McCain would have won. That's not a very controversial point.