“I don’t even want to like the guy… Stop being such assholes, news media! You’re such douches you’re making people root for him.”
Phrases like “I didn’t vote for him. But I’m starting to wish I had.” or “STOP MAKING ME WANT TO LIKE HIM.” are showing up all over the place. We’re even getting to “I’m not aboard the Trump Train yet. But I’ve got my ticket in hand and I’m standing on the platform.” or “I’m at the ticket counter for the Trump Train”
As Larry’s comment suggests, there’s a reason for this: the MSM and their buddies in Hollywood have thrown so much bile and hate towards Trump when he’s done next to nothing that the rest of us are beginning to think he might be all right after all. The accusations come from the sneering classes who have failed to hide their disdain for us normal people and are so over the top, so deranged, that it seems like they are scared of him. Plus of course Americans tend to have a spot for the plucky underdog, and although it is hard to see a billionaire as a plucky underdog, the frothing left have managed to do just that.
– Francis Turner, writing “I didn’t vote for him but…”
As libertarians and/or conservatives, we understand that there’s usually a down side as well as an up side to most phenomena.
1) Meryl Streep could have attacked Trump over the October surprise tape: a line like “Since our president is not a lady, I could at least wish he were a gentleman” would have reminded people of some trash talk that at least really once actually happened.
Instead, she went with the “he mocked the disabled” story. Trump flails his arms three times in that speech. If opportunity offers, show your liberal friends the three clips with the sound off and have them guess which one is about a disable reporter instead of (IIRC) about Cruz or about some general. Then remove one of the other clips and ask them if they wish to change their pick. 🙂 Then show them the old clip of the allegedly-mocked NYT reporter – whose disability makes it hard for him to flail his arms, not hard for him to refrain from doing so. Since Trump’s audience in that speech did not know the reporter was disabled, the alleged mockery is pointless; they and we learnt it from the ‘outraged’ media afterwards. (Did Trump know? As a New Yorker who moves in celeb circles, it is hard to be certain he did not know or did not think of it in the speech, but at first glance the probability seems against.)
In short, Meryl Streep went with a classic “brutally impose known-to-be false narrative” rather than anything real. (I have been told that the three clips were posted to a comment on the WP story almost immediately – and as almost immediately that comment was deleted. I have also been told that video clips, as opposed to stills, of the reporter are hard to find post-story – allegedly lest the difference between his disability and Trump’s arm gestures be obvious.)
There is I think a deep seated habit here that celebs and the media will find very hard to break. Until they do, Trump will gain the benefits of the OP.
2) One of Instapundit’s reasons for voting for Trump on November 8th was because the media would scrutinise Trump but cover for Hillary. He has recently been obliged to note the flaw in his argument; the media wants to expose Trump so much it defeats them from doing so if ever needed. That is not an unmitigated good.
P.S. If anyone knows my takedown of the ‘mock disabled’ story is over-emphatic, by all means comment.
Before Julie points it out 🙂 , I had better admit that “As a New Yorker who moves in celeb circles, it is hard to be certain” should have been “As Trump is a New Yorker who moves in celeb circles, it is hard to be certain”. The five-minute edit limit is enough for most typos but evidently not enough for my grammar.
“I didn’t vote for him. But I’m starting to wish I had.” is almost word-for-word what I said just a few days before I read that article. Which is funny when you think about it, because Trump is not President yet, and there is no reason to think that he might turn out a better President than the one I thought he would during the elections.
Trump is winning not only because the attacks on him are (to put it very mildly indeed) over the top. He is winning also because he fights back. Romney did not seem to have the temperament for that. McCain has the temperament, but seemed incapable of letting it loose on fellow members of the American ruling class.
Memories of what one used to think are unreliable, but i seem to remember that i was skeptical about Trump being as vicious towards Democrats and the media as he was towards Jeb Bush and later Ted Cruz. Happy to see that i was wrong.
Good article, thanks.
The same people who nominated Obama for a peace prize before he took office.
That turned out well didn’t it?
as because the media would scrutinise Trump but cover for Hillary.
It begs the question whether all the fuss over “fake news” would have emerged if Trump had not won?
The “mainstream” media (and the education system – the schools and universities) should wait – wait till the Federal Reserve Credit Bubble economy collapses, and then blame President Donald Trump (and the Republicans) for the collapse.
Of course that would be unjust (as the collapse will be nothing to do with Mr Trump) – but millions of people jobless and on-the-bread-line would not know it was unjust – they might well believe the media agitprop campaign.
The present media agitprop campaign is just silly – pick up the Economist magazine, look the latest rant saying (for example) that Democrat ballot rigging does not exist (when it is actually real – and large scale in the cities) and that it is “discrimination” to demand that voters show I.D. (even if the I.D. is free), YAWN and then put the magazine back on the shelf.
Bleep the mainstream media – the left have always been dishonest, now they are boring as well.
Nah, Niall, you been [sic] hanging out with Americans too much, is all. More to be pitied, etc.
It’s gotten so bad that I’m finding myself editing Tom Clancy for grammar. 😥
He is winning also because he fights back.
Nearly right. I don’t think it’s the fighting back, ie the willingness to stand up for himself. I think it’s the fighting per se, ie the willingness to punch people on the nose, who
(a) desperately need their noses punched and
(b) imagine that their noses are somehow immune
The John Lewis spatlet is a classic example. Lewis attacked Trump. Trump counterpunched. Trump’s reason for counterpunching was obviously fighting back. But that’s not the reason why those who are happy about the counterpunch are happy about the counterpunch. It’s because Lewis is a prat, trading off his 50 years ago civil rights marching to accuse anyone and everyone in the GOP of “raaaaaaaacism !” Not excluding John effing McCain for chrisake. He desperately needs a metaphorical punch in the nose, to help release the bag of wind behind his vocal chords.
Likewise with luvvies like Streep. She needs a good (metaphorical) kicking, simply for her smug patronising luvviness. (And for some of those accents.)
The attraction of Trump. for people who don’t like Trump, is that he’s willing to land one on the deserving smug.
As one of those deplorable Americans who actually (gasp) voted for Trump, I want the Media, Academia, and Hollyweird to to keep frothing at the mouth and doubling down on every over the top accusation. Their irrelevance can not come quickly enough. I’m a Christian, cis-gendered, hetero-normative, veteran, gun owning, white male of European descent (Scots-Irish). Every word in that last sentence has made me a target of Progressive spite and disdain. I am so very tired of being told to apologize and grovel in guilt for being who and what I am.
I have developed a permanent schadenboner from all the winning with Trump going after these people.
I didn’t vote for Trump (I cast a hopeless, meaningless vote for Johnson, since my state was absolutely guaranteed to go to Clinton), but schadenboner is my new favorite word of the week.
Watching supposedly sensible people claim, with utter seriousness, that Trump is going to send millions of Americans to death camps and repeal the 1st Amendment makes me lmao. And when, a year or two from now, those same people seek consideration for their latest commentary, I will simply be pointing back to their ridiculous claims of Trump=Hitlerism and placing them in the permanent “disregard” file. I will NEVER let the frothing progressive left forget the things they have said over the past two months, not as long as I live.
That includes about a third of my relatives, too.
Niall, in your first comment, you write:
I did find this page:
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/
A bit less than halfway down the page, there’s a video of The NYT’s reporter Richard L. Berke interviewing Mr. Kovalevski, dated 6/28/13. There are two shots of Mr. Kovaleski which, while quite short, do show his wrist and hand held still against his chest, the opposite of “flailing about.”
I must say that Hair “talks with his hands” a lot.
By the way, this is a piece obviously in defense of Trump. On the other hand, as such it’s sort of a [sic! 😀 ] welcome change. If anyone is plagued by the Research Bug, go “Off to the stacks, off to the stacks …” (to be sung to the tune of “After the Fox”) and read the thing. Several links (I haven’t followed any, though).
Also by the way, the first time I saw the site all the videos were blacked out. I brought Firefox down and restarted it, and lo! the videos appeared.
I don’t know that the amount of crap thrown his way was what did it.
We’ve spent twenty-plus years watching our politicians fall to pieces and tremble and apologize anytime someone calls them sexist or racist or this-phobic or that-hating. We’ve tried to support them, only to be hurt time after time.
We’ve never been able to form any strong loyalty to any of them because we knew that they would surely disappoint us at the first media suggestion that they don’t love every single black pedo transsexual who ever pulled a gun on an old lady. What’s the point of rallying behind someone to defend them when they’re going to eventually grovel and whine and call their own supporters – us – racist clods by extension?
Trump allows us to root for him without reserve, because he’s not going to roll over and show his belly when someone claims he said “booger” back in 1997. We can give him our all – we don’t need to temper our enthusiasm for his battles – he’s not going to apologize just to keep the Washington crowd from thinking he’s a Neanderthal and leave the rest of us hanging.
He IS a Neanderthal. And he’s OUR Neanderthal. I’m not sure that’s the best qualification for a president, but we could have been preparing for Hillary’s inauguration, and this is WAY more fun.
My regrets for not investing in Microsoft in the 1980s are now joined by a sorrow for not taking a position in popcorn futures for the next four years. What fun awaits!
I love the phrase “sneering classes” and expect to purloin it.
And I second everything Snorri said.
Thanks for making my blog a QOTD. I’m honoured. People (e.g. Laird) are strongly encouraged to purloin phrases like Sneering Classes and Schadenboner (which per Perry of this parish is better in fraktur mit umlauts), the more that use them the better.
There’s a little list of critical phrases which are entering the English lexicon these days which hurt the “progressive” elites – virtue signaling being the obvious one – and one way we others get our message across is to make these words and phrases a part of everyday usage. The “Sneering class” seems to be a very good addition and if I coined it (I may have purloined it myself, but if so I forget from whom/whence) I hereby donate it to the cause.
I like to listen to a fair few podcasts on this and that and much of the time if they mention Trump it’s only in passing. However, the Slashfilmcast had a post-election rant of a good 45-50 minutes at the beginning of one of their episodes that I imagine turned a lot of people on to at least feeling maybe Trump isn’t literally Hitler just out of reflexive reaction to this over the top cry session.
One of the hosts of the show insisted that Jimmy Fallon was wrong to have Trump on as a guest on his late night chat show because it helped to humanize him. If Trump was literally Hitler I could see this being a problem, having a mass murderer on your show to laugh and joke with but Trump was just a candidate back then, not even President-elect, so it’s bad to let people know that Trump isn’t literally Hitler and actually a human being!?
I’m more and more looking forward to President Trump just to see how people react
Thanks to Laird for the secondment.
Now that i have read the expression “sneering classes” 3 times, i might remember it well enough to use it when appropriate.
Lee Moore makes an important distinction between hitting back, and hitting those who deserve it. I agree that the latter is more important, but i cannot remember Trump hitting anybody who deserves it, except when it was a case of hitting back. Even with Hitlery, he told her that she belongs in jail (which is true btw) only after the Hollywood tape came out. Still, this strategy got him elected, and if it works why fix it?
There was a piece in the NY Times about how “diverse” Obama’s cabinet was. Mostly blacks, weemin and some Chinese.
Trump’s is, mostly, old white men as himself and most of the US population. (except the housing and education secretaries).
I thought cabinet members were nominated based on their abilities, not on the skin color or gender.
A Congressman – who has been paid to be in politics for ever (never done a non “activist” job) says you are not the legitimate President, and then starts raving about the “Russians”.
You reply that perhaps the Congressman should pay attention to his (Atlanta) District – where statism has not worked very well, to put the matter mildly…..
And the world media attack Y0U (not the lunatic raving that you are not the “legitimate” President) because you have “attacked a Civil Rights icon”.
Fewer political “icons” and more productive employment would be nice – although (I yet again point out) the Credit Bubble economy is bound to bust, and Mr Trump will get the blame for that bust.
The greatest idiot in Obama’s cabinet, by far, was the least “diverse” one, John Kerry, so, maybe diversity is good.
And the world media attack Y0U to no effect.
No one who didn’t already care cares now. That is what the media are terrified of, they cannot make a noise now and get their own way, they are trying to rugby-tackle a train.
Jacob, Kerry may have been the “greatest idiot” in Obama’s cabinet (I won’t argue with that), but I would suggest that more “idiots” would have been a distinct improvement. It’s the non-idiots (such as the execrable Eric Holder at Justice, or the hopefully-soon-to-be defanged Richard Cordray of the CFPB) who have caused the most damage. Please, give me idiots instead!
Here is the NYT article I mentioned
It’s not that Kerry did less damage, it’s only that he did it in foreign relations, which seem to bother you less than some damage done within the US.
Actually, Jacob, that does bother me less, because much of the damage done to our relations with allies can easily be repaired with a change in administration (foreign leaders all know what Obama is/was), whereas much of the internal damage consists of burdensome and stupid regulations which, in large measure, are much more difficult to undo, as well as judicial appointments which are for life.
Julie near Chicago (January 14, 2017 at 8:13 pm), your specific link via the catholics4trump website appears unreachable, but the https://www.catholics4trump.com front-page links to a narrated video (subtitles, so you can watch with the sound off if you like) that includes an old video of the reporter.
Although I didn’t vote for Trump in the primary, I did vote for him in the General because #NOTCLINTONEVER. Also, I saw that as a successful executive, Trump has had a habit of surrounding himself with capable people — and his Cabinet picks have underlined that hypothesis, in spades.
However, the Daughter announced that she was going to vote for Gary Johnson The Libertarian because as a Millennial, she hated Clinton and despised Trump. This was her intention until Johnson made the fateful “Aleppo? Qu’est-ce que c’est?” gaffe, whereupon she stated that she could not in clear conscience vote for so ignorant a person to run the U.S.
So Daughter came back from the polling station on November 8 and said, “I voted. Now I’m going to have a shower.” But she doesn’t feel so bad about her vote anymore, simply because she’s seen what the screaming Left didn’t see, and still hasn’t seen: that Trump is a good executive — which, considering that he’s going to run the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, is not necessarily a Bad Thing.
The fact that Trump slags off the Leftist mainstream media at every opportunity doesn’t hurt, either.
Niall, thanks for the update and the link. Parts of your video are certainly taken from the interview of Mr. Kovaleski that I saw, which I see has been pulled because “the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.” (Same at the UT site itself, of course.)
The video I saw was posted directly under the headline (which is also a link) ‘WaPo “Fact Checker” Gets 4 Hillarys for Ignoring Evidence Trump Didn’t Mock Reporter’s Disability.’
.
I’d like to see hard evidence of the celebrating Muslims. I remember seeing articles stating that Muslims were dancing and cheering in the streets in New York — and around the world.
I have an online pal in California (who happens to be half-Japanese) who says that as of 9/11 among his circle of friends were around two dozen Muslims, whom he had thought full-on Americans and salt of the earth … but that after the event, all but two of them where chortling with glee.
My friend is not a gullible type. Nor a fanatical one either.
UPDATE. On UT, there’s a video of a Kovaleski interview in which we can see how his hand does move. Again, there’s no flailing — just a bit of flexing of the fingers. I’m pretty sure this is the Berke interview, but if so it’s more complete. Also, you can’t hear the interview, which is drowned out by music and chitchat. I suppose that’s why it’s still available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OYpv5fImA
The left is suffering from linguistic inflation. For years now, leftists have routinely denounced anybody who disagrees with them as racist and fascist. As a result, those once-serious accusations have been so devalued by overuse that they have become little more than meaningless partisan insults. People gradually stopped paying attention, but few leftists noticed how their great words of power were wearing out until they threw them all at Donald Trump and nothing happened. Since they did not understand what was happening, they responded with ever more extreme denunciations that only served to devalue those words as well. Like a government frantically printing new bank notes in ever more absurd denominations in a vain bid to preserve the currency, they keep escalating their rhetoric towards the point at which its value must collapse entirely.
Laird:
If only! Syria cannot be put together with a change of administration; neither can Ukraine. And even if Syria could be put together, few of the refugees who have come to Europe would go back of their own will — especially since many if not most of them are not Syrian in the first place.
And even if all the damage could be fixed, it will be a long time before the rest of the world will forget that somebody like Obama might be elected again.
One of the things that really struck me about Ms. Streep’s ridiculous speech was the continuing destruction of the word brave. How anyone could describe her speech to a roomful of people who completely agreed with her, was somehow brave is just ridiculous. I was reminded of all the laud and praise for Obama when he sent a team to kill Bin Laden. Apparently that was brave? How can anyone seriously describe an action that was guaranteed to be spectacularly popular as brave? I mean sure, the guys who flew in at night into an army base full of hostiles to get the guy? Yup, the were brave. Watching on TV? Not so much. Bashing someone that everyone in the room hates while sipping your champagne in your $20,000 evening gown? Not brave.
BTW, the often sneering Piers Morgan did an excellent fisk of Streep’s speech, right here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4102026/PIERS-MORGAN-Sorry-Meryl-hypocritical-anti-Trump-rant-easily-worst-performance-career-apart-time-gave-child-rapist-standing-ovation.html
Ever the optimist, I can see one positive result out of this hash.
The world has now seen that an Obama can win elections in the USA, and that our country remains so bitterly divided that it is probable that we will elect more Obamas in the future.
Some countries have taken to heart the lesson that they should place less emphasis on what the USA will do, on how the USA might help them, on the idea of the USA as a source of funds or resources or support.
We’ve been that huge planet orbiting off in the distance that alters the orbits of all other planets through sheer mass for a century. I’d like to think that we’ve exercised that power with at least a modicum of selflessness, but the fact is that, recently, we’ve not been very competent at it. Conflicts that should rightly have been settled decades ago remain troublesome because we’ve frozen them in place. Lacking the will to simply impose what we see as just solutions, we’ve strung out suffering for far longer than it would have lasted even with outcomes we wished to avoid.
Once we get past the time of thrashing out what a withdrawal of that USA power from world affairs will entail – after other countries stop depending on the USA – only then can other actors act to resolve conflicts.
This is why I’m not troubled by Trump’s apparent take on NATO. Obama screwed NATO through incompetence and dishonesty. Trump speaks of lessening our influence on NATO openly, and places the world on notice that we’ll be looking more inwardly than outwardly for at least the next four years, which allows and encourages other voices to be heard in NATO’s mission.
Yes, we’re still interested in outcomes, but the primary voices to be heard regarding NATO should be those with the most to lose without NATO.