Did the Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?

I know the mainstream media is always licking its wounds after President Donald Trump smacks them around in his press conferences since being in office.

And I hate to add salt to their wounds, but it seems they’ve got a case of amnesia.

It all started when President Trump went all-out against the network because they reported on an unsubstantiated 35-page document that claimed Trump is being blackmailed by the Russian government.

Trump praised those in the media who had restraint from peddling the false report.

“I have great respect for the news, great respect for freedom of the press,” Trump said, thanking those who didn’t run the unsubstantiated story, saying his opinion of them may have “gone up a notch.”

But the mainstream media rallied around CNN.

“The journalist whom Trump called on should have yielded to CNN. Don’t allow him to refuse to answer questions  from certain news outlets,” Politico reporter Peter Sterne tweeted.

Acosta whined that incoming press secretary Sean Spicer threatened to toss him out of the press conference after he repeatedly interrupted the president-elect demanding to get his question answered.

I can’t recall the mainstream media rallying around Fox News anytime over the last eight years when President Obama attacked them.

In fact, let’s review the times Obama blamed the number one name in news (AKA Fox News).


October 25, 2008

Then-candidate Obama complained he would be polling higher if Fox didn’t exist. This may work in soap operas and song lyrics, but that’s not exactly the best start to a working relationship with the press.

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latté-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

June 16, 2009

Obama says that Fox News is entirely devoted to “attacking my administration.”

JOHN HARWOOD: Last question. When you and I spoke in January, you said–I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming. Media critics would say not only has it not come, but that you have gotten such favorable press, either because of bias or because you’re good box office, that it’s hurting the country, because you’re not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Assess that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty…

HARWOOD: I assume you’re talking about Fox.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone. And you’d be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front.

October 14, 2010

Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

December 2010

After the Democrats’ midterm election shellacking, President Obama reportedly toldlabor leaders in a private meeting that Fox News was partly responsible for him “losing white males” who tune into the network to “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7.”

He needed someone to blame for the massive losses because the next election was his.

May 10, 2011

Obama takes a shot at Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.

“One CEO had this to say about reform. ‘American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society… Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, science, higher education and innovation.’ That’s Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with his views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama bumper sticker on his car.”

January 27, 2013

Obama hits Fox News for making “compromise” a “dirty word.”

“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

September 26, 2013

Obama went after Fox News on the campaign trail for his health care law.

“If you’ve talked to somebody who said, ‘Well, I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said this is horrible,’ you can say, ‘you know what? Don’t take my word for it! Go on the website.”

February 2, 2014

During a pre-Super Bowl interview, President Obama suggested Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly was being unfair for asking questions about ObamaCare’s shortcomings, the IRS scandal and Benghazi.

“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.”

“And they believe it because folks like you tell them that,” Obama said, adding on the IRS scandal: “These kinds of things keep on surfacing, because folks like you will promote them.”

October 2, 2014

President Obama insisted ObamaCare is “working pretty well in the real world” despite it being a “fanged threat to freedom on Fox News” in a speech at Northwestern University.

May 12, 2015

Obama hits Fox News for anti-poverty narrative.

“There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And, look, it’s still being propagated.

“I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, ‘I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone’ — or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right? That gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress — which is much more typical — who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.”

September 20, 2015

Obama takes a shot at Fox News for allegedly covering him unfairly.

“I want to repeat — because somehow this never shows up on Fox News. I want to repeat — because I’ve said it a lot, unwaveringly, all the time: Our law enforcement officers do outstanding work in an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. They put their lives on the line for our safety. We appreciate them and we love them.”

October 27, 2015

Obama claims “certain televisions stations” distort his position on guns.

“And some of you who are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs. Please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everybody’s guns away and every time a mass shooting happens one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of firearms and ammunitions jump up because folks are scared into thinking that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights.”

November 5, 2015

Obama blames Fox News for making him “seem scary.”

“It’s interesting, because we’re talking in Iowa; people always, I think, were surprised about me connecting with folks in small-town Iowa. And the reason I did was, first of all, I had the benefit that at the time nobody expected me to win. And so I wasn’t viewed through this prism of Fox News and conservative media, and making me scary. At the time, I didn’t seem scary, other than just having a funny name. I seemed young. Sometimes I look at my pictures from then and I say, I can’t believe anybody voted for me because I look like I’m 25.”

September 18, 2016

At a Clinton fundraiser in New York City, President Obama predicted a close election “not because of Hillary’s flaws,” but because of Fox News and some blogs “that are churning out a lot of misinformation…”

November 3, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for “balkanization of the media.”

“The problem is we’ve got all these filters. Look, if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either because you’ve got this screen—this funhouse mirror—through which people are receiving information. How to break through that is a big challenge.”

November 29, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for election loss.

“In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments.”


While the media and liberals are lamenting the fact that Trump is defending himself against CNN and other left-wing news outlets, they were largely silent as President Barack Obama routinely attacked Fox News for 8 years.

So, it happens during every presidency. The president feels a need to defend himself, so before CNN and MSNBC and other speculation news outlets have another seizure, as President Trump points out how unjustly his administration is being covered, think about all that President Obama said about his “enemy” in the media.

The irrationality in some precincts and the dishonesty of the talking heads and the absolute hysteria that surrounds some news stories is simply dumb and incredibly annoying. You get nowhere when you present the facts and they are rejected, so why bother? Facts don’t matter to these ignorant morons or conspiracists, why debate them? And the worst part is if you don’t see it the way that these far leftists do, then you’re branded as a racist.

Advertisements

Clemson Professor Must Apologize Or Resign After Defaming All Republicans As Racists

This past week an Assistant Professor of Human-Centered Computing at Clemson University, Bart Knijnenburg, took to social media to attack all Republicans as racists deserving of violence and scorn.

Mr. Knijnenburg wrote that “All Trump supporters, nay, all Republicans, are racist scum” on his social media account, comments which have prompted passionate debate. In response to a dissenting comment on his post, he went further writing that “All Republicans, yes, your complacency made this happen. Pick a side: denounce your affiliation, or admit that you’re a racist.” The professor’s comments are derogatory and defamatory to the majority of South Carolina voters and millions of Americans who are supporters of the Republican Party.

I denounce this sort of hate-filled rhetoric directed at Republicans. As you are well aware, the South Carolina Republican Party helped elect our state’s first-ever female, Indian-American Governor in our friend Nikki Haley. U.S. Senator Tim Scott, one of conservative champions of the United States Senate, is the first African American U.S. Senator from South Carolina and he is a member of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is diverse, young, and growing, and it is not exclusive to any one race, ethnicity, or gender. An attack on all Republicans as racist because of the actions of alt-right fanatics in Charlottesville is absurd. The so-called “alt-right” isn’t right, and they certainly do not speak for conservatives like me.

President Clements issued a well-worded response, but did not call on Assistant Professor Knijnenburg to apologize for his hateful rhetoric. While I appreciate Dr. Clements’s response, it still constitutes a double standard. If Mr. Knijnenburg was a Republican, and he had defamed the Democrats, he would have been escorted off campus by security. It is time that all Americans, regardless of our political party or principles, treat one another with dignity and respect. The hateful rhetoric surrounding race, ideology, and party affiliation has reached a fever-pitch not known since the 1960s, and this tenor is untenable. I do hope that Clemson University President Clements asks Mr. Knijnenburg to apologize, and for his resignation if he does not. Mr. Knijnenburg was also involved with Clemson’s Black Lives Matter spin-off “See the Stripes”. In response to Milo Yiannopoulos’ speaking event (that was scheduled for October 18th, 2016) at Clemson University a group of Left-leaning students and their respective organizations formed the “Anti-Milo Event Committee” to protest against the conservative speaker. The Clemson chapters of Students for a Democratic Society (whose motto is “crush the right”) and “See the Stripes” are the primary instigators of the protest committee. Here, you can listen to an audio recording of one of their meetings, trying to stop people’s right to the first amendment:

dad176a714f04cc498bec86685cd8baf

In these difficult times for our country, we certainly cannot afford to have academic leaders using their platforms at public universities to fan the flames of division. I hope that Clemson President James Clements can appreciate this fact.

Why the US Hasn’t Brought “Fire and Fury” to North Korea

As the world ponders the meaning of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury” on North Korea, it’s worth asking why his predecessors never took those steps to stop its nuclear program. Trump isn’t the first president to threaten North Korea. The others were all bluffing.

When Bill Clinton was confronted with the threat of North Korea’s exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he considered military force. But he ended up going for negotiations in what became known as the Joint Framework Agreement. The North Koreans froze their plutonium program in exchange for fuel shipments and a light water reactor from the U.S. Neither side ever fully delivered.

Then there was George W. Bush. He didn’t like North Korea. He put the nation in the original “axis of evil.” On his watch, the U.S. discovered Pyongyang had a secret uranium enrichment program, in violation of the spirit of Clinton’s deal. Then in 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear device. By 2007, Bush had lifted crippling sanctions on the regime’s elites and entered into new negotiations. And surprise: The North Koreans backed out of those talks at the end, too.

By the time Barack Obama came into power, the North Koreans were back to building up their program. They perfected missiles, sunk a South Korean ship and shelled a South Korean island. The current tyrant, Kim Jong Un, ascended to power and proceeded to consolidate his position, killing his uncle and later his half brother. All the while, Obama pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” aimed at not rewarding Kim’s regime for its provocations and rogue behavior.

Now Trump has inherited a mess. Not only is Kim testing ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, as the Washington Post reported this week, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency now assesses North Korea can miniaturize a nuclear warhead so that it can fit inside a missile. Game, set, match.

So why didn’t the last three presidents take out North Korea’s nuclear facilities when they had the chance? The answer is Seoul, the thriving capital of South Korea. The North has enough artillery pieces within range of this metropolis to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which could very well begin a world war and throw the global economy into a tailspin.

Past presidents have understandably feared the North would retaliate in this way. But for some today, that fear is fading. John Plumb, a former director of defense policy and strategy for Obama’s National Security Council, told the Atlantic last month: “If I were the Trump administration, I would be looking at the threat to incinerate Seoul and trying to figure out how real it is. Because to me, it’s become such a catchphrase, and it almost — it starts to lose credibility. Attacking Seoul, a civilian population center, is different from attacking a remote military outpost. It’s dicey, there’s no doubt about it.”

Intelligence officials have said in recent months that this threat remains very real. While there are steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the problem, such as dropping cluster munitions on the big guns, it’s an imperfect and high-risk strategy. An attack on North Korea would be unpredictable and could unleash far worse on U.S. forces (which have been stationed in South Korea for more than 60 years), not to mention allies like Japan.

All of this gets back to Trump’s bluster. At this point we as Americans ought to expect more careful words from the president. At the same time, nothing Trump said was that different from the implicit threat against North Korea, or any power that threatens American cities with nuclear destruction.

Don’t get me wrong: There are few people on the planet more deserving of “fire and fury” than Kim Jong Un. But would such a strike even eliminate its nuclear program? How far is Trump willing to go? Will he order an invasion of North Korea to topple the regime? And if he does, would he commit the manpower, capital and time to stabilize the country once the Kim dynasty falls?

According to retired Admiral William Perry, Clinton’s second secretary of defense, the U.S. couldn’t even take out North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure with military strikes, given how much it has expanded in the last 20 years. What’s more, the price paid by South Koreans would be unacceptable. This is what he told a group of journalists this spring at an event sponsored by the Hoover Institution.

It’s possible that Trump is counting on his reputation as an impetuous novice — one who Kim just might fear would roll the dice by attacking North Korea. But Trump’s ultimatum allows the boy-tyrant in Pyongyang to test the president’s mettle. (Already the North Korean state media has threatened Guam.) We can expect more taunts and threats in the coming days, proving Trump’s threat was hollow. As hollow as past presidents’ pledges to do the same.

Yep, It’s Definitely Donald Trump Who’s the Tyrant Here

Hitler. Mussolini. Stalin. Pol Pot. al-Assad. Hussein. Gaddafi. Franco. Kim Jong Il. Each one is considered a dictator, a tyrant who’s greed for power is only surpassed by their cruelty and inhumanity.

If you were to wade into the depths of #TheResistance on social media (which I don’t recommend), you’d also see a movement to brand Donald Trump a dictator and his administration a lawless tyranny over the nation.  To be sure, the Trump administration has done itself no favors is coming across as inept, overly ambitious and yet clearly out of its depth. They have said things that, yes, are frightening.

But let us be absolutely honest here. When it comes to tyranny in America, there is no tyranny except for that of the mob.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse. The instant communication of thoughts to the world allows for breaking news to break faster and hard-hitting news to hit harder. The downside is that it opens you and everyone you know and love up for ridicule, petition, and even expulsion from society.

Case in point, the lad from Google who wrote what is being called a “manifesto” opposing Google’s diversity policy. It seems that, virtually instantly, this person was the target of a mob whose sole purpose was to flush him out of The Collective.

It worked, too. Google fired the man (interestingly, a new social media platform called “Gab”, which touts itself as an ad-free, free speech platform, offered to hire him), and the Left was delighted that the wrongspeak was punished.

This is not the first time, however, that someone’s livelihood was destroyed over thinking or believing the “wrong” thing. We’ve covered countless times the bakers, photographers, and other business people whose lives were ruined and their businesses shuttered because they dared to not conform with the Left’s ideology.

“But Mr. Reagan Conservative,” some on the Left might cry, “this isn’t tyranny because mobs aren’t the government.” If you think that, you are wrong. It is with the help of the courts that these attacks on private businesses have flourished. It is the politicians who speak out and encourage this behavior that ruins the lives of people whose only crime is thoughtcrime.

For another example, take Chelsea Handler, the so-called comedienne who actually suggested we criminalize speech.

Where, exactly, does this type of legislation begin and where does it end? By the Left’s standards, virtually everything is racist, so that means if you laugh at something someone else deems is racist, you’re going to (at best) be fined. This is an actual proposal from someone who thinks there is no problem with criminalizing what someone finds funny. There is no end to this slippery slope, either.

Or take the case of Dana Loesch, who is under attack from journalists and Leftists because she appeared in an NRA video ad and says she wants to fact-check the media. The number of people who want to silence her by reporting her to the feds, threatening her husband and her children, and making graphic, sexual threats to and about her is appalling.

But this is the new norm. This is the world we live in now. We have to deal with the tyranny of the mob before we can move on to the tyranny of any White House occupant.

So, forgive me when someone calls Donald Trump a fascist dictator with one breath and turns around to advocate banning speech because they don’t like it.

 

Fourth of July Message

My one of my main men, Bill O’Reilly, posted this on his website, and I thought it would also be a great idea to share it with all of you too:

We Pledge to you an Honest Presentation

A new Gallup poll says just 27 percent of Americans trust newspapers and 24 percent have confidence in TV news.
Those numbers are actually up a bit from the recent past, if you can believe it.  The reason for the slight improvement is some Trump-hating Americans are satisfied that the press despises the president as well.
The distrust of the media is both good and bad.  Above all, the national media no longer seeks the truth and the folks know it.  Ideology and money now drive news coverage.  The mission to bring facts to the populace has vanished.
The fact that many Americans understand this – is a good thing.
The big downside of distrusting the press is cynicism.  No longer can we make decisions based upon information we are confident about.  Now, we have to seek out individuals for perspective.  Some of those people are honest, many are not.
As we approach Independence Day, it is a shame that the American press has fallen apart.  The Founders would be sad to see that.  They wanted an honest press to protect Americans from powerful people who might harm them.
We on this website pledge to you an honest presentation.  And we wish you a great July 4th.
I would also like to wish all of you a great, smart, fun, safe, and conservative July 4th, as we celebrate this great country that we all live in. May God bless our President and may God bless this great country.
Have a conservative day,
The Reagan Conservative 🇺🇸

Why Do They Keep Losing? (the Democrats, I mean)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Despite spending millions and millions of dollars, the Democrats still lost in Georgia’s 6th District.

You could see the pain on their faces: they thought they had this one.

But they didn’t.

Here’s why.

Let’s return to the shooting of Steve Scalise – or rather, the liberal reaction to it.

On MSNBC, and its twin sister, the campus lounge – we saw a ghoulish reiteration of one sad take:  the shooting wasn’t entirely unjustified. In fact, given Scalise’s voting record, it all makes sense!  Joy Reid rushed to point out the victim’s past, Hollywood trolls like George Takei echoed her assumptions, and a Connecticut professor actually thought it a mistake that a black officer helped save white people’s lives.

Johnny Eric Williams, a sociology professor from Trinity College, posted on Facebook a number of declarations, including that blacks shouldn’t help white people when they’re in danger. As Campus Reform reports, he wrote, “The time is now to confront these inhuman a**holes and end this now.” He was referring to whites.

How does this relate to the election? Good question. I’m getting there.

Such harmful and destructive comments do not impact the election directly, but create a detour from a winning strategy. Imagine you’re driving to work, and your car decides, independently, to go in the wrong direction, taking you further and further away from your destination.  For Democrats, that car is identity politics, and it’s taking their party further and further from a place where they might still resonate with the rest of America.

It’s steering the party down a destructive path that makes any correction or improvement impossible.

Today, more people are seeing the wrath of identity politics up close. It’s getting more coverage, and receiving more mockery.  Take for example, the identity cultists at Evergreen College who ran a professor out of town because he objected to their acceptable anti-Caucasian racism. Even liberals were shaken up by this. For a laugh, google “President of Evergreen College George Sumner Bridges” and click on the videos of him kowtowing to students – some of whom held him captive during the ordeal, even accompanying him to the bathroom.

Identity activists pretend to seek rights for the “collective,” but each day they become more like hardened fascists who desire a race and/or religion war.

The destructive impulse of young so-called minds is a tedious, immature one, which is why it’s so disgusting to see academics indulging it.  Instead of challenging the unformed and uninformed minds, teachers feed into their hysterical, unbending desires, resulting in a new world where life experience takes a back seat to identity.

The campus is now a place where the wisdom of a man or woman with a decade of military experience, plus another decade in the work world, takes a back seat to the infantile blathering of a 17-year-old with a nose ring. A self-indulgent whiner with no real challenges in life gets more respect than people who make things, defend things, value things.

In normal life, if a college freshman rejected civil discourse, got in your face and told you to shut up, he would be suspended, perhaps expelled. Now they are applauded, and allowed to harass another day. The campuses are under new management: the mob.

Because campus administrators have long ago abdicated their responsibilities in challenging bad ideas, those bad ideas graduate along with the students, spilling into the real world. The graduate, still angry and self-obsessed, can do nothing but spout bumper sticker slogans and blame everyone for everything.

No one will hire that.

So, their only refuge is either to return to school, or to enter political activism as a vocation – and perpetuate their non-productivity. As a result, campuses and political bodies become even more strident and intolerant, infecting all.

Which is why the Democratic Party is in trouble. For the last four decades they’ve bought the myth that America is the actual problem, and that the solution is to replace a single identity (American), with hundreds of sparring tribes. Now they must feed those tribes.

So when a party stands for nothing but envy, anger and retribution – how long before people decide it’s enough? If the Democratic Party were an actual party, their punch bowl has been spiked with rat poison.  Until they drain that bowl, the party’s candidates will continue to drop like flies.

The New Political “Unity” as a Result From the Alexandria Shooting: Far Left Progressive Democrats Are Not Your Friends, Republicans

This week’s unity-fest between Republicans and Democrats is little more than a temporary cessation of hostilities. Both sides benefit from the photo ops it provides but both sides hope they will earn more political points than the other as a result. It is like the post 9/11 period in microcosm. It lasts as long as it takes for agendas to resurface, then that guy for whom you were just expressing your undying friendship and admiration goes back to being a racist, bigoted, homophobic war-criminal who is literally trying to destroy the entire planet.

Those beliefs don’t go away after a crisis like the Alexandria shooting. There’s just some vestigial part of the leftist psyche that remembers that continuing to act like a jerk after a tragedy is bad optics. It only applies to those in the spotlight though. The run of the mill left wing activist or social media troll uses tragedy as an opportunity to ramp up his douchebaggery.There is no political unity in our ultra-polarized country, nor should there be, to be quite honest. The polarization exists because one side wants to “fundamentally transform” (or destroy) the things that make America America.

Unity is one of those concepts like compromise. Being united, like coming to a compromise, almost always means moving the country to the left. It is almost always the right who gives in to appease the left. It’s true despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs whenever Republicans attempt to implement policy. Almost any time Washington takes action it results in the federal government having more power, spending more money, or curtailing more individual liberty. There are occasional back steps but the overall trend is leftward, toward more centralized government. Elections no longer decide the direction of the country. They only determine the rate at which we are moving to the left.

If you are an elected Republican, Democrats are not friends with different opinions. That is a description that perhaps applies to average citizens, neighbors, coworkers, family members. While I still balk at the hysterics about us being involved in a literal civil war, I am not naive enough to think Democrats want anything less than transforming America into a European style welfare state. To a large extent they already have. That sort of policy will never achieve its stated goals, so in the minds of progressives, the federal government will never have enough money or power. To get it, they will lie, cheat, or defame anyone who stands in their way. Far left progressives would destroy you in a heartbeat if it could advance their agenda.

The progressive left routinely tells horrible lies about not only the policies of the right, but about the motives of those who propose them. For some reason Republicans believe that this is something that happens between friends. How long would you stay friends with someone who constantly maligned your character in public? Not long, I suspect.

Maybe I just have an unreasonably high standard for deciding who I count among my friends, but if there is real friendship—as opposed to just superficial cordiality— between, say, Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, then the entire political show is a farce. The hostility and character assassination are just political theater meant to fool the proles into thinking someone in Washington is on their side. Either option is enough to turns one’s stomach.

In every one of these Washington unity displays, the Democrats are the “elites” and the Republicans are the “schmucks”. The GOP thinks that maybe the Democrats are finally coming around to accepting them as human beings while the progressives get to look warm and fuzzy for a few days before going back to slinging false stereotypes and denigrating the character of their “good friends.”

Obviously there are always exceptions. Occasionally some progressives will have short term goals that coincide with conservatives and we should work with them when that’s the case. Republicans too often act to appease the left though. I’m not advocating that Republicans fly into impotent rage at Democrats like President Trump on a 3 AM Twitter bender. I just wish they would stop letting themselves get played for schmucks.