I followed a link provided by Bryan to a site that Wikipedia describes as “conservative,” but — just going by the headlines — seems quite a bit farther to the right than that.
Anyway, in the middle of the piece Bryan had linked to, I saw the above ad. Here’s what it linked to.
And I thought, “Really? Still?”
I had thought all that demonize-the-Clintons stuff was about keeping her from becoming president. Apparently, for some folks, it’s a career.
Which, of course, is what’s wrong with American politics across the spectrum from left to right: All those folks out there, in the parties and the many more-or-less affiliated interest groups, whose jobs depend on keeping people outraged…
Related Posts
This seems an example of the Conan the Barbarian school of politics: “‘What is best in life?’ ‘Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.'”
Or men, in this case…
So since Hillary lost, and questionable activity (and there appears to be plenty) by the Clinton Foundation should be ignored? Apparently you are a charter member of “Move On”.org
You’re missing my point. I was mildly surprised that people still cared.
Beyond that, it doesn’t come across as unbiased people caring about supposed corruption. It’s presented in the context of right-wing politics. If you’re really trying to make a broad-based appeal, why do you choose to advertise in this particular venue, and not on mainstream sites?
And, you know, I thought that campaign was over.
I mean… do you hear the Swift Boat Veterans still making noise about John Kerry? No. They, as you said, moved on…
For purposes of continued pay-to-play, the foundation has already been shut down by its own undersupply of future donors.
As to a more realistic motivation for Judicial Watch’s ad, it is publicity to capitalize on recent FOIA successes (re: Hillary e-mails) to garner more contributions akin to what the left-leaning, lawyer-employing ACLU is also doing: https://www.aclu.org/other/print-ad-no-president-above-law
It is your blog, Brad, and as you have chided one of your other readers, you can run with your own opinion whenever you wish. The problem I have is when you, as a professional journalist, defend equally unbalanced journalism standards. Some of us can see why the other reader was confused by switched personas.
This time, you presented as an opinionated blogger, balance not required. We have too often get the similar imbalances (i.e. questions directed only to the right) from working journalists (e.g. Martha Raddatz). Credibility of mainstream journalism has long been squandered as a network news practice for simple-minded audiences.
The rest of us would love to see the DNC nominate Hillary again!
I’m not sure what your point is, Juan.
I saw this thing that made me go, “People are still going on about this stuff?” And I shared that.
That’s about it…
Brad, as explained in only one sentence (= my 2nd paragraph) both formidable left and right-leaning non-profits sides are “still going at it” (fundraising). It should be no surprise to someone in your current industry – advertising.
By the way, Juan — I was thinking about you this morning. I was thinking you might enjoy the comments about lawyers that Bryan shared on his blog…
Yes! Thanks for sharing this with Juan…and everyone else.
Thank you for thinking of me in connection with Brian’s recent blog Brad.
Both of you should remember that while it may appear otherwise at times, I have an firm appreciation of honorable practitioners of the law. Besides the unscrupulous parasites among them, however, I steadfastly detest their profession’s grossly unrepresentative numbers in today’s governmental bodies.
And, Bryan, I envy the depth of your historical readings and will even confess looking for this:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pettifogging&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpettifogging%3B%2Cc0
Thanks guys.