Wednesday Links and Open Thread

40 thoughts on “Wednesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. CNN disqualifying Michelle Witmer’s father from asking questions shows what a horsesh*t operation they are.

  2. Some perspective would go a long way in the Michelle Fields/Lewandowski fracas. But when Andrea Tantaros uses the words grabbed and lunged(as she did in the first segment on today’s Out Numbered) to describe what Fields did to provoke the Lewandowski reaction, she does nothing to bring any perspective. Get a grip, Andrea, so to speak.

    • To borrow from Jedediah Bila’s description of Trump yesterday on The Five, “this guy lied and you’re backing him up.” In this case, Andrea is backing Trump and Lewandowski up. Per the Chris Cillizza transcript, and what you’re saying, Marty, she is doing exactly what Trump did. She’s calling Michelle a liar and claiming she’s at fault.

      If life were fair, a more electable candidate would be winning these primaries and caucuses, and get nominated. Instead, Trump is dominating and assuring a third consecutive term of a Democratic president, in addition to the Democrats recapturing the Senate.

      • Bingo.
        Not the crime of the century. But someone grabbed Michelle Fields and left bruises. She didn’t grab or lunge at anyone. So everyone get in your corners and come out swinging. Blame the victim. Blame Trump. Write endless articles and discuss it over and over on panel discussions. Beat that dead horse even deader. Make a fool of yourself on tv.
        We are so screwed as a country. Never mind political parties.

        • We’re screwed regardless of party, but one party will conquer from the division: the Democratic Party, as I noted in my initial reply.

          I’d elaborate, but I’m far enough off topic as it is.

        • That is biscuit-eating dumb of Tanteros. .

          Someone needs to tell her that she is isn’t a political campaign manager anymore.

          • Well to be fair and actually defend Andrea for once, she didn’t outright say Fields grabbed or lunged. She was posing a hypothetical what if someone did that and the secret service handled it. They had just run a clip of Trump making that accusation and the impression I had was that AT was taking Trump’s version and forming a hypothetical around it. That’s how I remember it but I could be wrong. Happens more than I like.

          • The video of said Out Numbered segment is in J$ twitter feed to the side. To my mind, Tantaros repeated the stupid.

          • If you can’t find it in the twitter feed you can see it here. However, the posted clip does not include the set-up where they showed a clip from Trump where he claimed (if I recall correctly) that she had grabbed him first. So it’s not clear that Andrea was referring to a Trump theory, or at least I took it that way. She may actually believe that theory but I don’t think she outright said so. IMHO.

          • Yeah, in making the point that this would be perceived differently if the Secret Service around Trump had intervened rather than C.L. (duh..), Tantaros sat up a scenario that the video does not support.

            She should ask herself why the S.S. agents didn’t intervene. Most likely because they didn’t perceive it as a threat and know who is who around the campaign.

            That said, Tantaros did suggest that there was a cover-up in the Trump camp and that C.L.’s account didn’t comport with the video.

  3. Today’s most popular links:
    5 ranker
    4 is stunned
    3 holds top 13 slots
    2 cancelled Fox News interviews
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 CNN disqualified National Guard hero’s Dad from asking town hall questions.


    I got this link from a Breitbart piece which was, in turn, linked at Drudge.

    It leads to a Marquette University professor’s blog.

    Prof. John McAdams has gotten himself into some trouble for defending a student over his having voiced an unpopular opinion to a unversity instructor.

    It’s a hoot. It’s now as perilous to work in academia as it was to be a member of that group during China’s Cultural Revolution.

    Only now academes are cannabalizing each other.

    If you wonder why we have people in their late teens and early 20s, who should be brimming with ideas, irreverence, and moxey, but instead are crawling under a bed and sucking their thumbs at the slightest challenge to their thinking, you have only to look at the idiots who are teaching them.

    • An interesting read Cecelia.

      I would be okay with classroom discussions of certain issues pertaining to religious freedom vs. gay rights. Or whether the clergy should be forced by law to perform a marriage for a gay or lesbian couple.

      But agreeing with the professor somewhat I would not be okay with topics like:

      • Whether someone is born gay.
      • Whether you can ‘pray the gay away’.
      • Whether an employer should have the freedom to fire someone for being gay.

      If I was still a practicing Catholic, perhaps I would feel differently.

      Sounds to me like a worthwhile topic for discussion for Outnumbered or The Five.

      • I think every one of those topics is germane for discussion.
        There has long been research going on with the first topic you mention, the next two would involve how we define freedom of religion and association.

        • Which is why I think it would be a worthwhile topic for discussion on the FNC shows I mentioned.

          They could even broaden the topic (or issue) for discussion.

          For example, should a college professor be praised or criticized for excluding classroom discussions which might offend:

          • gay students
          • black students
          • religious students
          • handicapped students

          Of course, the tricky part is who and on what basis is a topic deemed offensive?

          • Well, it’s not exactly rare for someone to be offended by a counter view to their own and college professors ought not feel especially pressured to mitigate that.
            I hope your brothers would have common sense too. Common sense in knowing the difference between that sort of “offense”, from the offense which might justifiably come from treating a topic superficially, disdainfully, or intentionally inflammatory.

          • I really don’t think the line is as vague as that. What makes it seem that way is when the deciders in chief hold either of two conflicting and equally erroneous views: that all claims to offense are equally valid, or that they are more or less valid depending upon the demographics of the offended.

  5. i am sick of donald trump. there is nothing else even discussed that is not linked to him. click after click trump. Bastante!
    ……and we have only just begun.

Comments are closed.