OUR DEMOCRACY'S NEW CLOTHES: A good, decent person made a mistake!

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2024

Dozens of bomb threats have followed: Was our flailing nation's public discourse once a different critter?

In 1960, the Kennedy-Nicon TV debates marked the start of the modern political era. Our national discourse was perhaps different then. Consider what Teddy White said.

Theodore White, age 46, was smart and highly experienced. Writing in a famous old book, he offered this observation about the candidates' second debate:

WHITE (page 292): Kennedy’s response to the first question on Quemoy and Matsu was probably one of the sharpest and clearest responses to any question of the debates; in that response, actually, Kennedy was tentatively fingering at one of the supreme problems of American statecraft, our relation with the revolution in Asia. 

In yesterday's report, we showed you the full text of Candidate Kennedy's statement. Also, we linked you the videotape of that sharpest and clearest response.

Do presidential candidates speak that way in debates of the present day? As a general manner, no—but White was unhappy, way back when, even with that response.

According to White, the fact that Kennedy had only two-and-a-half minutes to speak meant that he'd been "out too far with such a thought" to fully explain his view. 

Indeed, White offered that very response as an example of how limited our discourse had become that year. In a footnote, he added this:

WHITE: For a full development of this two-minute answer, one had to wait for days, until Kennedy’s extraordinarily lucid half-hour speech on Quemoy and Matsu in New York on Columbus Day, October 12th. That speech was heard only by a local audience, and its full text was reprinted, so far as I know, in only three newspapers in the country. It was as fine a campaign discussion of an issue of national importance as this correspondent can remember—yet its impact on the nation was nil.

So it went, according to White, in that dumbest of all presidential campaigns—a campaign in which only three (3) newspapers bothered to publish the full text of an "extraordinarily lucid half-hour speech."

Only three newspapers published the text! In White's view, that was one marker of our nation's badly failing discourse.

Today, no imaginable candidate would actually give such a speech. No newspaper would even dream of publishing some such text.

Today, our discourse is draped in a new suit of clothes, in a way which calls to mind the foibles of a famous old emperor. Our discourse is draped in a new type of raiment—in a wardrobe which has changed in fundamental ways, yet may be hard for us to see. 

Where does today's discourse come from? In the wake of the so-called "democratization of media," our discourse may flow downhill from the type of stream described in today's New York Times.

Way back then, Theodore White was a summa cum laude Harvard grad. Candidates Kennedy and Nixon were both remarkably well informed, as judged by modern standards.

Where are the headwaters found today? Thanks to the democratization of media, the news report to which we refer starts exactly like this:

Ohio Woman Says She Regrets Sharing False Rumor About Haitians on Facebook

When Erika Lee wrote the Facebook post, it was just another summer day in Springfield, Ohio.

It was before the city got dragged into the presidential race, before former President Donald J. Trump stoked debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants were abducting and eating household pets, and before an ensuing wave of bomb threats upended life in the town of about 60,000.

Ms. Lee had heard that a neighbor’s cat had disappeared and that one of their Haitian neighbors might have taken the animal, so she posted the rumor on Facebook...

Erika Lee, age 35, is plainly a good, decent person. As the news report continues, she is quoted voicing her deep regret at her decision to "post the rumor on Facebook."

That said, the news report describes what happened after she posted the rumor. The report continues as shown:

Ms. Lee had heard that a neighbor’s cat had disappeared and that one of their Haitian neighbors might have taken the animal, so she posted the rumor on Facebook. But then she decided to go back to her neighbor.

It turned out the cat that had supposedly gone missing wasn’t the cat of a neighbor’s daughter, as Ms. Lee had posted. And if there were such a cat, it belonged to a friend of a friend of the neighbor’s daughter, Ms. Lee learned.

“And at that point, we are playing the game of telephone,” said Ms. Lee, who said she had no information herself about any abducted cats.

She has since deleted the post, but it had taken on a life of its own—eventually finding its way into the right-wing echo chamber, where it was picked up by Mr. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who grew up in Middletown, about 40 miles from Springfield.

[...]

Ms. Lee, 35, says she now regrets writing the Facebook post and feels bad about the racially charged fallout that has consumed the city for days.

“I was not raised with hate,” Ms. Lee said, speaking through sobs. “My whole family is biracial. I never wanted to cause problems for anyone.”

Erika Lee made a rookie mistake. Like almost every good, decent person, she isn't a highly trained journalist. 

That said, an astonishing person came along and decided to run with her rookie mistake. Last Tuesday, the man who sits at the top of that person's ticket angrily wailed about this confection during a presidential debate.

Yesterday, we showed you what happened when he did. Because what happened is highly instructive, we'll show you the text once again:

DAVID MUIR (9/10/24): I just want to clarify here. You bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community—

TRUMP: Well, I've seen people on television—

MUIR: Let me just say here, this is—

TRUMP: The people on television say, "My dog was taken and used for food." So maybe he said that, and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.

MUIR: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.

TRUMP: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.

MUIR: Again, the Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that

TRUMP: We'll find out.

Should David Muir of ABC News have sought to "clarify" what that particular candidate said? 

The candidate had angrily repeated a ser of claims which had already been widely debunked. Should the moderator have simply "moved on?" Or should he have done what he did?

From that day to this, Muir has been savaged all over the Fox News Channel for daring to call attention to that angry candidate's apparently bogus statement. Having made a set of inflammatory statements to 67.1 million people, the candidate merely said that "we'll find out" if what he said was true.

We've come a very long way, baby, from the dueling statements by Candidates Kennedy and Nixon concerning Quemoy and Matsu. As White reported, their dueling statements about those islands continued into their third debate. 

Those candidates were well-informed and highly articulate, although they held differing views. 

The candidate from whom Muir sought clarification made other statements last Tuesday night which may have emerged from the twilight zone on the border of mental disorder. In our view, major news orgs like the New York Times still haven't found the way—or perhaps haven't found the journalistic courage—to come to terms with the new raiment that particular candidate has draped on our public discussion.

Tomorrow, we'll show you some of other statements that particular candidate made that night—statements which seemed to arrive on the scene from a zone near Lala Land. On Friday, we'll try to think about the way the New York Times has chosen to deal with that particular candidate's long list of baldly disordered statements.

For today, we'll direct your attention to the point of origin of this current blight on what's left of the national discourse.

 According to the Times report, the point of origin was a bit of bad judgment by a good, decent person with connections to Facebook—a good, decent person who posted a rumor before she went back to check facts.

"Every man [sic] a king," a famous politician once said. The leading authority on his career offers this initial thumbnail:

Huey Long

Huey Pierce Long Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed "The Kingfish," was an American politician who served as the 40th governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and as a United States senator from 1932 until his assassination in 1935. He was a left-wing populist member of the Democratic Party and rose to national prominence during the Great Depression for his vocal criticism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal, which Long deemed insufficiently radical. 

As the political leader of Louisiana, he commanded wide networks of supporters and often took forceful action. A controversial figure, Long is celebrated as a populist champion of the poor or, conversely, denounced as a fascist demagogue.

Some saw Long as "a populist champion of the poor." Some saw him as a demagogue. 

His famous cry—Every man a king!—was aspirational at that point in time. In the wake of the democratization of media, his famous cry has instead become descriptive.

Today, everyone with an Internet link can end up driving the American public discourse, whether for good or for ill. 

Inevitably, "democratization" sounds like a very good thing. But in the instance under review, this particular type of democratization empowered a good, decent person who made a mistake to set in motion a chain of events which has led to dozens of bomb threats and to the evacuations of public schools.

A good, decent person made a mistake. For whatever reason or reasons, a pair of candidates for higher office stepped in and took things from there.

Last Tuesday night, David Muir of ABC News sought "clarification" of a statement one of those candidates made during a presidential debate. Muir has been widely criticized for that outrageous decision.

Moderators in 1960 were faced with no such decisions. Neither candidate in those debates alleged the eating of cats and dogs. Neither candidate in those debates made equivalent statements. 

Our discourse has come a long way since then—and it's wearing a new suit of clothes. 

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at the Fox News Channel and the New York Post—at the outrage which has emerged from those particular orgs in the wake of Muir's decision. From there, it will be on to Blue America's leading newspaper—on to the New York Times! 

In our view, our discourse is draped in a new suit of clothes—and we don't mean that as a compliment. In our view, news orgs like the Times are politely averting their gaze from this fact—from the new arrangements which are driving our vastly changed discourse, and from its disordered participants.

At the dawn of this failing era, Theodore White was upset. One candidate delivered a lucid address—and only three American newspapers had published that hopeful's full text!

Tomorrow: "Who ordered tax?"


67 comments:

  1. The whistleblower affadavit. Questions fed to Harris.
    Signed! Sworn to! If true...!

    But does it matter if it's true? A year from now. 30% of Republicans polled will say they know it happened. Because they saw it on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lacking integrity is a feature for Republicans, not a bug. They will claim to believe any old nonsense, nonsense they do not actually believe, if it in any way soothes their emotional discomfort at having their dominance challenged.

      Because of the democratization of media, phony stories have a diminished capacity to infect society.

      Because of the democratization of media, right wingers have safe spaces that serve as an outlet for their oppressive nature, typically manifested through misogyny, racism, xenophobia, etc, diminishing the actual implementation of those oppressions.

      Delete
  2. She made a simple mistake, so people who are even simpler than her picked it up and ran with it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Looking forward to Bob Somerby not at all explaining that the media can't call out Right-wing liars, because that would make them look biased against the Right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Erika Lee made a rookie mistake. Like almost every good, decent person, she isn't a highly trained journalist. "

    Racism is not a "rookie mistake". Of course it has negative consequences for stigmatized people. That is why racism is wrong, bad, shouldn't be part of people's thinking about other people.

    Somerby is leaning way over backwards to tell us how good and decent this woman is, but if she hadn't been engaging in racist behavior, she wouldn't have hurt both Haitian immigrants and the people of Springfield. The point of anti-racist campaigns is to prevent such occurrences by teaching people not to engage in such behavior.

    It is not good and decent to do and say racist things. Full stop. Somerby's pretense that anyone could have made such an innocent error and all that is wrong is that she didn't check her facts (because cats and dogs are eaten by immigrants all the time, if not her distant connection's personal experience) is accepting the racist premise, even if the story is not only unverified but a horrible slur on people who themselves are just trying to live their lives. The nature of the slur should have given Lee pause, caused her to dismiss the story as unlikely and ugly on its face.

    Somerby doesn't seem to understand what is wrong with Lee's behavior. If she had no prejudice herself (because she is biracial, Somerby says), she wouldn't have repeated the story. It is our duty, as good decent and responsible people, not to repeat such garbage about others. Most of us who come from less prejudiced childhoods, are taught not to do that kind of thing -- and that is the nature of anti-racism, teaching everyone not to do such things.

    Somerby wants this to be about journalism, but it isn't. It is about acting like the good decent person Somerby seems to assign to people just on the basis of being people, when it takes some effort to be good and decent, including not stereotyping minorities and not accepting slanders told by others and repeating them to harm any group, including Haitian immigrants.

    This same slander existed when I was younger, applied to Vietnamese immigrants and also about street taco meat. I'm sure it has been told about every group of stigmatized people, just like the other slanders told by Trump and Vance and MAGAdom. Shame on Somerby for giving this person a pass. She is as guilty as those who repeat the story out of explicit malice, because she should know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who marched in Charlottesville at the "Unite the Right" protest against removing Confederate statues from the public square aren't good decent people, either.

      Delete
    2. One of Somerby's ongoing themes is that progressives are too quick to throw R bombs at everyone in sight, which leads to a backlash that harms liberal interests. Exhibit A for this argument could be 10:35's comment.

      Delete
    3. One of the problems with Somerby's themes, is that they are not backed by evidence, nor demonstrated to be accurate in any way.

      If Somerby's themes bring you some emotional comfort, the main role of fictional storytelling, more power to you.

      Delete
    4. PP,
      Even our liberal media know Republican voters are economically anxious, and aren't at all just a shit pile of bigots.
      That's why they tried to overthrow the United States government, when Trump gave that HUGE tax break to the rich and corporations, and not when black people's votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.

      Delete
    5. "One of the problems with Somerby's themes, is that they are not backed by evidence"

      How can anyone vote for a 34-time felon, who sexually assaulted a woman in a dressing room, whose organization was convicted of fraud and whose CFO was imprisoned, who had to settle a fraudulent university scheme for $25M, and who incited a mob to storm the Capitol in an effort to overturn a legitimate election? Perhaps it is because these people are tired of and offended by those who so carelessly call them "racists" all the time, and so they are highly motivated to "own the libs."

      Delete
    6. There's other ways to get people to stop calling you a "racist".
      Would you like me to list it?

      Delete
    7. You just don't get it. Overly-promiscuous use of the R-bomb may be counterproductive electorally.

      Delete
    8. If they cared at all about fixing the rigged economy, I'd call them "interested in fixing the rigged economy".
      I'd call them lots of names of things they care about.
      They only care about is bigotry, so I call them "bigots".

      Delete
    9. Unfortunately for our friend PP, there is no evidence to support his claim. Worse, appealing to people's sense of justice related to those suffering from oppression like racism, actually increases voting.

      PP just does not get it because he can not think on his own here, preferring to be relived of that duty by his hero, Somerby, who is, as it turns out, quite a poor thinker, preferring to make baseless claims instead of putting in the effort to actually learn about subjects and issues.

      Delete
    10. According to Vance, Republicans lose votes because their policies are "openly hostile to non-whites".

      Delete
    11. If racists don't want to be called "racist" they should stop doing and saying racist things. You don't stop racism by ignoring it because the racist people's feelings might be hurt. Why don't racists stop being racist because the people they are targeting have hurt feelings too?

      Your term "over-promiscuous" implies that some people who aren't racist are being called racist. This is because racists never think they are racist. They think they are good decent people with righteous complaints about some group of lazy, criminal people who don't speak English or cook food like they do. The racists are not the victims in this scenario.

      Someone who backs off anti-racist activities because the racists don't like what they are doing, cannot claim to care about social justice. And that is the difference here. Somerby doesn't care about social justice at all -- but he does care are the feelings of racists a lot, especially Southerners. That makes Somerby entirely different than most liberals, who place a high priority on fighting racism and don't think the South was treated poorly after the Civil War.

      Delete
    12. 4:00 - You disparage Somerby's theory, but I haven't heard your explanation for why so many people vote for the orange-haired con man. Since you, unlike me, can "think on your own," please enlighten us: Why do all these people vote for Trump?

      And, since you insist on evidence, please supply the evidence that supports your explanation.

      Delete
    13. 4:10 - Some liberals care about winning elections and feel that calling everyone "racist" all the time is not a winning strategy. Obviously, you think otherwise.

      Delete
    14. And, BTW, sitting there in anonymity and calling people "racists" is not quite on the same moral plane as riding through Georgia on a Freedom Bus.

      Delete
    15. PP, every Trump supporter who I have talked to is supporting him because they believe there is some self-interest involved. Some say they hope their businesses will do better or they want to keep their guns. I have not heard anyone say they admire him or think he is a good person. At the extremes, Q-Anon believers think he is tied to the apocalypse and heralds the coming of Christ, so their beliefs are religious at heart. I find the narrow focus on personal benefit without thought for the common good, to be a common denominator among Trump supporters and Republicans in general.

      Delete
    16. "your explanation for why so many people vote for the orange-haired con man."

      You aren't going to like my answer.
      Let's just say it has absolutely nothing to do with economics.

      Delete
    17. PP says:

      "And, BTW, sitting there in anonymity and calling people "racists" is not quite on the same moral plane as riding through Georgia on a Freedom Bus."

      Here PP shows that he thinks calling people racist is about demonstrating moral superiority, not using peer pressure to stop racist behavior in everyday life. When you call out racism, it doesn't matter who is doing the calling out -- what their nym is or whether they are anonymous. What matters is that the racist and their behavior is being made the focus of attention. People tend to be embarrassed by that, which is aversive, and it makes them change their racist behavior.

      A few decades ago, casual racism was more frequent in everyday life. Now it is less so, because racists are embarrassed to be called out for their ugly jokes, slurs and other behavior. So calling out racism works.

      PP and Somerby seem to share the belief that liberals call out racism performatively, in order to demonstrate their own moral superiority. That isn't the dynamic. It is to decrease racism via peer pressure and social approbation. For that purpose, it doesn't matter what someone's name is, a nym or "anonymous." That racists don't like being called racists (just as Somerby doesn't like it), is the mechanism by which calling racism out works to decrease overt racism and make our social interactions more comfortable for minorities and not just racist bullies.

      Delete
    18. 9:53 - Do you think that calling people "racists" makes it more likely, or less likely, to persuade them to vote for Harris?

      Delete
    19. Here's what Obama says: "We start thinking that the only way to win is to scold and shame and out yell the other side. And after a while, regular folks just tune out, or don’t bother to vote at all."

      I think he's talking about you, 9:53. Scolding and shaming and yelling is not the way to win, in his view, in Somerby's view, and in my view.

      Delete
    20. People who will vote for Harris will come to that decision on their own, you poor dumb bastard.

      Delete
    21. 12:56 - Is that an answer or is it a dodge? "When in doubt, start calling names!" is not a response that convinces anyone that you're able to "think on your own."

      Delete
    22. It is not a dodge, it is my opinion based on my long life. I am not in doubt at all. All you do is bloviate day after day after day the same damn silly theory.

      You people always have this presumption that we don't know people who vote for Trump. I assure you I do.

      Delete
    23. To add to my comment, it is almost amusing that you continue to beat this tired drum at the very moment when the Trump/Vance traveling carnival show has decided to put all their chips in on full throated racist tirade attacking black migrant workers. I wonder what their calculation is here? Any thoughts who they are trying to attract?

      Delete
    24. It is a dodge. The question: Do you think calling people "racists" makes it more, or less, likely for them to vote for Harris? You spew insipid insults rather than answering. That's a dodge.

      Delete
    25. It is not a dodge. Your premise is false, it is not an either-or proposition. More or less likely? Neither, it is irrelevant. Will eating the creme filling first in my Oreo cookies make it more or less likely? Don't dodge the question.

      Delete
  5. There is something fishy about the recent supposed assassination attempt - the "assassin", a White male Republican gun enthusiast that voted for Trump, had been posted at the golf course for 12 hours, but Trump was not officially scheduled to go to the golf course, it was an impromptu occurrence, known only to Trump and his insiders, after campaigning the previous night in Utah.

    Trump tried to make it seem like he had been shot at, but in reality, the "assassin" had not fired a shot, and then had a lazy get away, foiled only by a bystander that reported his license plate number.

    As Trump falls in the polls, he will engage in weirder and more nutty illegalities in a desperate attempt to keep out of prison, to not have to face personal responsibility for his illegal and corrupt actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump, in Flint Michigan yesterday:

      I don't think I've ever said this before. So we do these rallies. They're massive rallies. Everybody loves, everybody stays till the end. By the way, you know, when she said that, well, your rallies people leave. Honestly, nobody does. And if I saw them leaving, I'd say, and ladies and gentlemen make America great again and I'd get the hell out, ok? Because I don't want people leaving. But I do have to say so I give these long sometimes very complex sentences and paragraphs but they all come together. I do it a lot. I do it with raising cane. That story. I do it with the story on the catapults on the aircraft carriers. I do it with a lot of different stories. When I mentioned Doctor Hannibal Lecter. I'm using that as an example of people that are coming in from Silence of the Lambs. I use it. They say it's terrible. So they say so I'll give this long complex area for instance that I talked about a lot of different territory… You know, for a town hall, there's a lot of people but the fake news likes to say, the fake news likes to say, oh, he was rambling. No, no, that's not rambling. That's genius. When you can connect the dots. Now, now, Sarah, if you couldn't connect the dots, you got a problem. But every dot was connected and many stories were told in that little paragraph ....

      Delete
    2. Oof, it is remarkable that Trump can ramble on and on incoherently, and his supporters whoop and holler with joy (yes many were leaving as Trump spoke, verifying Harris' claim). They are so desperate to stick it to the libs, they say "watch and learn as we vote for the most lunatic candidate ever", these tragically wounded people.

      Delete
  6. Today Somerby is more nakedly exposing his right wing tendencies, being less coy as he seems to support an elitist, hierarchical worldview.

    Somerby pines for the days when Cronkite would put in a few minutes of work telling everybody what to think, and then would take off from work and go party with Republicans; pines for the days when right wingers in government and corporations could engage in all kinds of underhanded and unscrupulous behavior and Cronkite and his ilk would not say a word about it.

    With government divided and frozen out of action due to corrupt tricks employed by the Republican Party - voter suppression, Gerrymandering, etc - the democratization of media is increasingly playing an important and positive role in holding to account those that are willing to harm society for personal benefit, and Somerby and the corporate media are pissed off about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. News flash: elitists today are not the 'conservatives'.

      Delete
    2. Then why did Trump give them a HUGE tax break?
      And, why do conservatives hate to be reminded about it?

      Delete
    3. Trump was born to the manor, Vance went to Yale Law and then became a venture capitalist.

      12:11 what on earth are you on about??

      Definitionally, right wingers are elitist.

      Delete
    4. You seem to think 'wealthy' and 'elite' are synonymous.

      The term 'elitist' today typically refers to those who have, and who value, education and expertise over the uneducated, inexpert instincts of the populists.

      That's why people like Trump and Musk, despite their wealth, are viewed, and view themselves, as anti-elite. How many 'elitists' do you see at Trump rallies?

      Delete
    5. "Trump was born to the manor"

      Again, no. Trump's family had wealth but they were famously from Queens, and Trump was always resentful that he was never accepted by the Manhattan elite.

      Delete
    6. 12:24 false. Fake news. Yawn.

      Elite is related to a hierarchy based on social standing and wealth.

      Trump and Musk are snake oil salesman, they employ anti-elitist sentiments to con suckers (like you, it seems).

      Trump (and Musk) was born into a wealthy elitist family that shunned lower classes. Trump then took that inherited wealth and engaged in boorish and corrupt behavior and ran all his businesses into the ground, which is why he was rejected by, not the elites, but by most people.

      Your stance is ridiculous and nonsensical, therefore your claims are irrelevant.

      Delete
    7. According to Somerby, "[Trump] made other statements . . . which may have emerged from the twilight zone on the border of mental disorder."

      I guess, to 11:58, this is an example of Somerby "nakedly exposing his right wing tendencies."

      Delete
    8. "Trump (and Musk) was born into..."

      Should be 'Trump (and Musk) were born into'

      Delete
    9. Republicans are a subset of right wingers, which includes some Dems as well. Everything in the universe is on a spectrum, but you have to draw lines somewhere. Leftists support egalitarianism, right wingers support hierarchy and dominance.

      11:58 makes it clear they are referring to those who "support an elitist, hierarchical worldview".

      No doubt Somerby finds Trump aesthetically distasteful, but that Somerby is also a right winger that is uncomfortable with Harris, and the progressive way Biden/Harris have been governing.

      Delete
    10. Doesn’t an Ivy League degree make one intellectually elite? Or does that rule not work for Trump?

      Delete
    11. It give you the presumption of intellectual eliteness. But if you show, over and over and over and over that the presumption is unwarranted....

      Delete
    12. "Doesn’t an Ivy League degree make one intellectually elite?"
      An Ivy League Law or Business degree makes them elites, but not intellectual.

      Delete
    13. David, there is no evidence that Trump earned admission to his colleges, nor that he took any tests himself or did the work to earn his grades. We do know from the Trump bios that Trump hired people to take his entrance exams and tests during his schooling and that his father bought his way into his colleges with donations. People who know Trump well say that he is one of the most ignorant men they have ever met and that he is not smart. I think you need to know things and be intelligent to be an intellectual elite.

      Delete
    14. PP, Somerby's ongoing criticisms of Harris reveal his right wing tendencies.

      Delete
    15. We also know from his tweets that Trump’s reading and writing is about at a sixth grade level. He’s never read a book that we know of, and his history comes from talk radio schlockmeisters of the right, just like David in Ca.

      Delete
  7. Bob relies on the City Manager that the catnapping stories are hoaxes. So, he ought to rely on the Governor that the bomb threat stories are hoaxes.

    Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine says Springfield bomb threats are ‘hoaxes’ coming from ‘overseas’

    Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine revealed Monday that a recent spate of bomb threats targeting the town of Springfield have all been “hoaxes,” with some originating from “one particular country” overseas...

    “Thirty-three threats; Thirty-three hoaxes,” DeWine said during a press conference in Springfield. “I want to make that very, very clear. None of these had any validity at all.”
    https://nypost.com/2024/09/16/us-news/ohio-gov-mike-dewine-says-springfield-bomb-threats-are-hoaxes-coming-from-overseas-one-particular-country/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point being...?

      Delete
    2. GOP's favorite country, if you're listening, stop the bomb threat hoaxes on Ohio towns.

      Delete
    3. Almost all bomb threats are hoaxes. No one likes to get bomb threats, because who knows, it may not be a hoax. Din C in your constant effort to be a sycophantic apologist for Trump, you neglected to consider that Trump chose to raise the issue at his one & only debate with Harris, which undoubtedly led to the bomb hoaxes.

      Delete
    4. Back in the early to mid 80's my school would get bomb threats regularly, like twice a month. Us students did not mind, because a bomb threat always entailed us getting to leave class and march outside and wait in a line until the bomb threat was cleared by authorities, which often would take up to an hour, sometimes they would even cancel the rest of the day and send us home. It was like having snow days, even though it did not snow in South Carolina (it did one year but very lightly).

      Delete
    5. Notice that Dickhead in Cal neglects to mention that the Governor is begging that orange abomination he supports to stop the shit. Dickhead in Cal doesn't give a shit that these Haitian students are afraid to go to school now or that hospitals are shutting down on regular intervals putting the population at risk. Dickhead in Cal thinks this is a very smart tactic of the abomination to gain support.

      Delete
    6. from the Bulwark:

      "...the Wall Street Journal reports that Vance’s office did actually reach out to the Springfield city manager to see if there was any validity to the rumors about Haitian migrants. The staffer was told that it was all baseless.

      Vance, nevertheless, kept up his post on X about the rumors. And that night, Donald Trump went on the debate stage and just stated it as fact.

      But that only touches the surface of the Journal story. The paper was also provided, by Vance’s office, a police report from a resident who said her pet might have been taken by Haitian neighbors. The reporter went to that person’s house. The resident said her cat had actually returned a few days after it went missing, found safe in her own basement. She had apologized to her Haitian neighbors."

      Delete
    7. AC/MA, back in the 1970s, the Weathermen planted working bombs in public buildings and then phoned in bomb threats so that the buildings could be evacuated before the bombs went off. These were real explosions perpetrated for political reasons, but the domestic terrorists did not want to kill or injure anyone, so they phoned in the threats in advance so the buildings could be cleared.

      It would be a horrible mistake for public officials to assume that bomb threats are always hoaxes when the consequences of being mistaken are so severe in terms of human lives. Instead of calculating what percentage of bomb threats are real, it makes more sense to investigate and calculate what percentages of working bombs are preceded or accompanied by threats. Do you know that statistic?

      Delete
    8. Several sensible comments above, but they're missing the point. What's bogus isn't the bomb threat. What's bogus is the claim that the bomb threats are being made Americans who were incensed by the false claim that Haitians were eating pets.

      Delete
    9. And you’re ok, David, with foreigners from a country Dewine won’t specify making bomb threats, essentially foreign actors interfering in our country and in our election, helping Trump frighten Americans?

      Delete
    10. @8:47 -You don't the motivation of the foreigner who made bomb threats. For all we know, their goal might have been to help Harris by making Trump seem dangerous.

      Delete
    11. “…one country from overseas…” Why is the governor of Ohio being deferential to a country meddling in this upcoming election by not naming it? Very bizarre.

      Delete
    12. It is kids making bomb threats in South Carolina. Why not in Ohio?

      Delete
    13. Do you see how depraved and sick Dickhead in Cal is? He is concerned that the bomb threats may be blamed on foreigners trying to make Trump seem dangerous. What kind of fucking sick person would even could even conceive of such an ugly plan except a maggot like Dickhead. As they say, every right-wing accusation is a confession.

      Keep in mind, in Trump's multiple court cases, he has had judges slap multiple gag orders on the reckless sonofabitch because of real actual threats that have been documented coming from Trump's army of little brownshirts. Threats to poll workers like Ruby Freeman, threats to FBI agents, threats to judges, threats to family members of judges, the list goes on and on.

      But fucking Dickhead in Cal is worried about other people trying to make Trump look dangerous!!!!!!
      Trump is doing a very fine job of it all on his racist own, no help needed, you fucking fascist clown.

      Delete
    14. That is some sinister plot Dickhead in Cal has hallucinated. Only question is how did these foreigners convince Trump and Vance to spread their hateful racist lies?

      Delete
  8. “Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites"

    -JD Vance, in blog post he wrote in 2012 but then had deleted when he decided to enter politics.

    Vance is about as authentic as his eyeliner.

    ReplyDelete