Mendacity

Responding to the effort of Vladimir Putin to whitewash Russian history, Putin critic Gary Kasparov remarks "To invent a new history, the old one must be erased, painted over with Putin’s thick black brush. The evils of the past must be recast as necessary, even salutary, before they are imitated."

In the USA, we have Trump apologists such as a former Fox News propagandist:

The Mueller investigation found no collusion and the Durham probe has demolished what was left of the Steele dossier. But the collusion truthers are fighting back. https://t.co/SrvCoBofha

— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 28, 2021

The Washington Examiner article to which Hume approvingly linked was written by staunchly conservative journalist Byron York, who criticizes several individuals, among them David Frum (video below), who recognize that the association between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russians was no hoax. 

Mueller chose not to charge the then-President with a crime because, he explained, it "was not an option." Rather, he asserted, "if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Deeply dishonest, York invokes the term "collusion" twelve times, despite knowing that Robert Mueller, a lawyer, never used the word nor considered the concept because, as the latter emphasized, it "has no relevance to the criminal law arena." York, a gifted and clever writer, even once placed the term (i.e., "collusion") in quotations, thus making it appear that critics of Trump had used it.

Collusion need not rise to the level of conspiracy but be mere cooperation, and if collusion is what York, Hume, and other apologists want, Frum's summary seems apt:

It remains fact that Russian hackers and spies helped his campaign. It remains fact that the Trump campaign welcomed the help. It remains fact that Trump’s campaign chairman sought to share proprietary campaign information with a person whom the Senate report identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.” It remains fact that Trump hoped to score a huge payday in Russia even as he ran for president. It remains fact that Trump and those around him lied, and lied, and lied again about their connections to Russia.

A Republican huckster doesn't have to be one of the usual suspects. It can be the likes of York, Hume, or any other professional journalist who yearns for Trumpism without Trump or perhaps Trump with Trump.  They know that to escape ignominy, history must be rewritten, and they are hard at it.

 

Share |

No Profile In Courage



What is it about these conservatives?

That could mean a thousand things, but in this case it's an obsession with proving one's manhood.  Karen G. Handel, who went on to become an executive at Susan G. Komen for the Cure (and later resigned amid scandal), told her gubernatorial primary opponent in Georgia in 2010 it was "time to put the big boy pants on."  S.E. Cupp, who holds the conservative seat on MSNBC's hideous "The Cycle," criticized Ron Paul's hints of secession, stating "We put on our big boy pants and get down to business."

And now it's a man.  Britt Hume is exorcised because Barack Obama recognizes a con when he sees it. Hume complains about the President not wishing to take full authority for the sequester cuts and according to a cut played by Rush Limbaugh's producer, remarked

This has been pretty clear. The administration doesn't want this. The president seems prepared to let the public suffer almost as much as possible as long as he can blame somebody else. This is not what we expect of presidents. Presidents, in the end, are supposed to be the people who put on their big-boy pants and are prepared to shoulder responsibility -- and if they're criticized for using that responsibility or authority, so be it. 

There is no "if" about it.  We read

The Homeland Security Department released from its jails more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation in recent weeks due to looming budget cuts and planned to release 3,000 more during March, the Associated Press has learned.

The newly disclosed figures, cited in internal budget documents reviewed by the AP, are significantly higher than the “few hundred” illegal immigrants the Obama administration acknowledged this week had been released under the budget-savings process.

The government documents show that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released roughly 1,000 illegal immigrants from its jails around the U.S. each week since at least Feb. 15. The agency’s field offices have reported more than 2,000 immigrants released before intense criticism this week led to a temporary shutdown of the plan, according to the documents.

The states where immigrants were released include Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.

Once the Administration "put on its big boy pants," the Repub reaction was swift.  Virginia's Chuck Grassley, ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte, chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, charged "Simply blaming budget reductions as a means to turn a blind eye toward the national security of the American people is a dangerous plan, and one that calls into question the department’s preparations for sequestration.”

The White House and Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, blessed with plausible deniability, denied being aware of the release. White House spokesman Jay Carney said the individuals were "low-risk, noncriminal detainees" whose release was ordered by career officials at I.C.E.

Carney could have noted that when the budget of the federal government is cut, the damage is widespread and extends to law enforcement.  When one Party tries to bleed the government dry, to deny it of funds, this is what happens, he might have reminded them. Then Carney might have told them that releasing non-violent illegal immigrants has nothing to do with national security.

Republicans can put on their "big boy pants" anyway they want to and even trying to have it both ways, telling their base they're cutting spending, then complaining when it happens.  Still, there is little that is more cowardly than stripping government of its ability to function, then denying all responsibility for the consequences.




Share |

No Principle Here

In the wake of Barack Obama's decision on June 19, 2008 to channel Richard Nixon- er, to be the first major party presidential candidate to refuse public financing since the Watergate-era reform- there has been on the left both criticism and support of the senator's coldly calculated decision. Daily Kos and some others have argued that, well, the importance of electing Obama trumps any other principle or consideration.

But before we give any credence to that line of reasoning, hear the defense of Obama's move by conservative Repub Britt Hume of GOP TV. On Fox News Sunday on 6/22/08, Hume said

It’s a flip-flop. It’s worth it. And I say by and large good for him for a couple of reasons. One is that Obama really has proved that the limits necessary, because of public financing, if you take it, do not merely screen out the evil influence of all the rich people in America, but they also make it impossible for a great many individual donors to make their voices heard through their contributions.

So there you have it: forego public financing and "hear the voices" of powerful individuals tied to the pharmaceutical, energy, telecommunicationsand other special interests; or accept public financing and allow 150 million or so American taxpayers have their say. Britt Hume has made his choice- and likes Barack Obama's choice, too.