"Limbaugh was good in the beginning but then he sold out"
Like Josh Hawley, Limbaugh was exactly as "anti-establishment" at the beginning of his career at the end, which is to say "not in the slightest," unless you think the defining feature of America is that heterosexual white guys just can't catch a break
"Anti-establishment" is just an amazing way of describing a guy who not only worshipped Reagan but shared Reagan's views about the humanity of LGBTQ people snopes.com/fact-check/rus…
The ur-text here is his buddy Greenwald's remarkable repeated assertions that Donald Trump was opposed by "elite circles in the U.S." lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/08/republ…
It is, I suppose, overdetrmined that Taibbi agrees with anti-anti Trump superstar Josh Hawley that Republicans are a worker's party now. (A claim that, inter alia, implicitly excludes Black people from the working class) lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/02/limbau…
What unites Taibbi and Greenwald and their new hero Hawley is the apparent belief that an assistant professor of English literature at the University of Central Missouri is more representative of American elites than, say, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
The idea that attacking "D.C" is in tension with reactionary, pro-Establishment politics than an inevitable component is bizarre stuff
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I find this particularly objectionable because the Times has betrayed the underlying principle of the greatest lede in journalistic history: nytimes.com/2017/11/14/wor…
It's bad enough we have to deal with people calling Alfredo sauce with bacon in it "carbonara," can we just not open up another front? Carbonara is its own thing, stop trying to make it into another thing
The Smartest Guys in the Room is good too, and it's surprising how much non-overlapping material there is. There were a LOT of scams going on here amazon.com/Smartest-Guys-…
Michelle says start with the latter and you should probably listen to her:
Ted Cruz enters the "dumbest conceivable whataboutism" sweepstakes
It's worth noting here that the House is not required to use the Brandenburg standard for incitement, but even under that standard the case against Trump is strong. The 1/6 speech in particular is the definition of speech foreseeably leading to "imminent lawless action"
There is plenty of evidence that Trump intended these foreseeable results, starting with the fact that he was privately pleased to see the insurrection occurring and his only initial public reaction to it was to attack Mike Pence
Blue! Jack Johnson! There's A Riot Goin' On! Songs of Love and Hate! Hunky Dory! Tago Mago! The Fillmore albums by Aretha and the Allmans! Pretty rich vein there.
I mean, these lies are too obvious and unsophisticated to rise to the level of "gaslighting"
Particularly ridiculous is his attempt to treat "negligence" and "incitement" as separate questions. Trump's negligence on 1/6 is very strong evidence that the insurrection was the intended and desired result of his 77 days of incitements!