“Myside Bias”: How The Democrats Are Becoming More Trump-Like And Why No One Seems To Notice

Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the Trump-like rhetoric coming from Democratic leaders as the 2020 election season ramps up. While correctly criticizing President Trump for many of his comments, the Democrats have been engaging in almost identical commentary with little coverage. What is now missing is a high ground in an election season that seems to be getting more and more irresponsible and hyperbolic.

Here is the column:

Whoever ultimately prevails among the more than two dozen Democratic candidates for the presidency in 2020, the clear victor may be Peter Wason. The English psychologist was the first to establish “myside,” or confirmation bias — the tendency of people to gather or interpret facts that confirm their assumptions or preconceptions. With every passing day, the same “myside” bias is becoming more and more obvious but less and less recognized in the media.

Democratic candidates and commentators have engaged in Trump-like comments with virtually no coverage, let alone objection, because it does not confirm their view that Trump is uniquely offensive and divergent from the norm. Trump supporters often are the focus of news coverage for what is viewed as their blind loyalty and their ability to tune out offensive or embarrassing statements by Trump. Yet, the media — and many Democratic voters — have entirely ignored Democratic figures engaging in almost identical conduct or commentary. They just do not hear it because of “myside” media and politics.

Name calling

Trump often uses juvenile or insulting nicknames for those who oppose him, from “Sleepy Joe Biden” to “Crooked Hillary” to “Pencil Neck” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

The media has correctly objected to such name-calling yet said little when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as “Moscow Mitch,” an allusion to his allegedly being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin for blocking bills on election security. McConnell took to the Senate floor to decry the “modern day McCarthyism” of labeling opponents as communist stooges over legislative disagreements.

Joe Biden has labeled President Trump as a “clown” or simply the “S.O.B.” New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio refers to “Con Don.” Yet, there was no outrage over those juvenile names — because they are dismissed as just desserts for Trump.

Attacking the media

Many of us have criticized Trump for his “enemy of the people” mantra about the media. Trump often attacks media viewed as critical of him, including most recently (and repeatedly) Fox News.

Yet, there was nothing but crickets when former congressman Beto O’Rourke (R-Texas) described Fox News and other conservative media outlets as being virtual mouthpieces of terrorism. Following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, O’Rourke declared that “the seeds of terror … are transmitted day and night on Fox News, the most-watched cable news channel in the country.” He added that “they are amplified” by conservative media companies like Sinclair Media (which owns ABC, CBS and Fox affiliates) and “right-wing websites” like Breitbart.

Other Democratic candidates have attacked what they view as hostile media, too. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) described Fox News as “a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and mixing legitimate coverage with “bigotry, racism and outright lies.” Many people simply do not register these comments as attacks on the free press because they agree with the premise.

Attacking judges

Many of us have criticized Trump for his attacks on the integrity of jurists who ruled against him, such as his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage. Many in the media celebrated when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump by rejecting the president’s talk of “Obama judges” or Democratic appointees serving on court benches.

Yet, when decisions have gone in favor of the Trump administration, many Democrats and media commentators have immediately referred to those judges as virtual Republican dupes. Democratic members have referred to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh as the “Trump Justices” and threatened to expand the Supreme Court to dilute their votes. (In reality, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted with the left of the Court on critical cases last term).

Esquire magazine published a column denouncing judges who ruled against ObamaCare, declaring that the Republican arguments “don’t need to make sense. They just need the right judges — and they’re everywhere in the federal judicial system.” One Nation article explained how Trump jurists “swarming our judicial system . . . will linger, like an infected wound poisoning the body politic.” CNN ran headlines about “Republican-appointed judges” supporting the ObamaCare challenge, while Democratic members of Congress denounced federal judges ruling for the Trump administration as examples of why new judges must be appointed by Democrats.

None of these attacks were viewed as casting aspersions on judicial independence — because, of course, they were considered true while Trump’s attacks were viewed as false.

Politicizing the legal process

Trump has been criticized for his campaign mantra to “lock her up,” as if he could dictate the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. He criticized the special counsel investigations and, bizarrely, intervened in Sweden’s prosecution of American rapper A$AP Rocky, demanding bail (which cannot be granted in Sweden) and suggesting a danger to U.S-Swedish diplomatic relations if A$AP Rocky was convicted (which he was this week).

All of that has been disgraceful. Yet, there was virtually no outcry when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a former prosecutor, adopted her own “lock him up” pledge by promising that, if elected as president, her Justice Department would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump. The same people who found “lock her up” to be offensive found “lock him up” to be thrilling.

Last week, both Warren and Harris commented on the five-year anniversary of the Ferguson, Mo., shooting of Michael Brown, calling it a murder. The “murderer” in this case would be police officer Darren Wilson. Yet, a grand jury rejected all criminal charges in the case and the Obama administration’s Justice Department conducted a full investigation and also rejected criminal charges: “Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him.”

Thus, Warren and Harris not only rejected the conclusions of grand jurors and career prosecutors; they declared a police officer to be a murderer without even a charge, let alone a trial. Where was the outrage to that politicizing of the legal process?

None of this calls out for sympathy for Trump, who richly deserves criticism for his comments. However, Democrats have engaged in the same kind of comments with nary a word of remonstrance.

What is most striking in all of this is how many voters do not recognize their “myside” bias. Everything Trump says confirms their position, while similar comments by Democrats are ignored or excused. The result is a type of liberal exceptionalism.

In the 1960s, Wason was able to achieve his results with a couple dozen subjects, but the 2020 election is proving to be the largest Wason experiment in history, on the scale of tens of millions. The reason is that, while Wason actually exposed his subjects to opposing facts (which were still rejected), today’s voters live in hermetically sealed echo chambers where they select news that confirms their bias. For many Democrats, even if they hear Trump-like comments from fellow Democrats, they blame Trump for creating the environment leading to those comments.

What remains is bias protected by a hard shell of hypocrisy: All is fair in combating Trump … even becoming more like him by the day.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

142 thoughts on ““Myside Bias”: How The Democrats Are Becoming More Trump-Like And Why No One Seems To Notice”

  1. “The same people who found “lock her up” to be offensive found “lock him up” to be thrilling.”

    That is a problem. I mean Abraham Lincoln was treated with far more hate in his day. But it’s still unhelpful.

    1. Yeah, but HRC was investigated and found not to have committed any crimes. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator to crimes Michael Cohen is currently serving time for, and Mueller found obstruction of justice that over 1,000 former federal prosecutors say constitutes a crime for which he should be prosecuted. False equivalency.

      1. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator to crimes Michael Cohen is currently serving time for,

        You fancy Trump was composing Cohen’s tax returns and running his taxi business?

        and Mueller found obstruction of justice t

        Andrew Weissmann fancied you could prosecute the President for obstructing the obstruction investigation, and with making use of a definition of obstruction which is contrary to Justice Department policy. Keep reminding us you’re a lawyer. That’s so cute.

  2. The problem with the contrived ‘balance’ of this commentary is that the President’s supporters know all too well what the opposition is like. We confront them here daily.

  3. If you want a dignified public square (and such dignity can incorporate pathologies of its own), it has to be generated and nurtured by the manners and morals of the age. And who has worked most assiduously to wreck the standards of conduct which applied 70 years ago? Waal, the entertainment business, the bar, the academy, the mental health trade, and the social work industry. Professor, you’re associated with two of these sectors. You wan’t the perps, all you have to do is look around you.

  4. You do have a soft spot for the trumpster. I’ll give the point about attacks about personal traits, but intimating a connection between his rhetoric and domestic terrorism is hardly false equivalency. The truth hurts sometimes.

    Oh. And? Just “desserts”? Really? You’re better than that.

    1. here is a job for you to give you purpose in your life

      National Review Is Hiring News Writers

      August 12, 2019

      National Review is looking for two full-time news writers to join our News Department and work out of our New York City office. The ideal candidate would be a news junkie who keeps a constant eye on the headlines, and who is skilled at writing up rapidly evolving situations at speed. The ideal candidate would have at least one year of experience aggregating breaking news and doing original political reporting. Those interested should send a cover letter, a resume, and some examples of their work to: news.applications@nationalreview.com.

    2. Kind of like Saying Obama was responsible for BLM associated riots and destruction in Clayton Missouri?

      I just want to get your standards straight, for future reference

  5. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-isnt-the-one-dividing-us-by-race-11566158729

    Trump Isn’t the One Dividing Us by Race

    He hardly mentions it, while his adversaries are obsessed with ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilege.’

    Long before the El Paso massacre, President Trump’s political opponents accused him of sowing “division” with his “racist language.” Mr. Trump “exploits race,” “uses race for his gain,” is engaged in a “racially divisive reprise” of his 2016 campaign, stokes “racial resentments,” and puts “race at the fore,” the New York Times has reported over the past several months.

    Some examples: “As race dominates the political conversation, 10 white Democratic candidates will take the stage” (the Washington Post); Mr. Trump’s rally audiences are “overwhelmingly white” (multiple sources); your son’s “whiteness is what protects him from not [sic] being shot” by the police ( Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ); white candidates need to be conscious of “white privilege” (South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg ); “white supremacy manifests itself” in the criminal-justice, immigration and health-care systems ( Sen. Cory Booker ); “ Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri” ( Sen. Elizabeth Warren ); whiteness is “the very core” of Mr. Trump’s power, whereas his “predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness” (Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic).

    Liberal opinion deems such rhetoric fair comment, even obvious truth, not “racially divisive.” America’s universities deserve credit for this double standard. Identity politics dominate higher education: Administrators, students and faculty obsessively categorize themselves and each other by race. “White privilege,” often coupled with “toxic masculinity,” is the focus of freshmen orientations and an ever-growing array of courses. Any institutional action that affects a “person of color” is “about race.” If a black professor doesn’t get tenure, he’s a victim of discrimination; a white professor is presumed to be unqualified.

    That interpretive framework explains asymmetries in how the political and media elites analyze the Trump phenomenon. Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, recently denounced Mr. Trump’s “almost daily attacks on black and brown people.” But “almost” and “black and brown” are superfluous. Mr. Trump’s attacks on his fellow 2016 candidates—and on more-recent adversaries as homogeneous as Robert Mueller, Rep. Adam Schiff, Joe Biden and Ms. Warren—were as nasty as anything he’s directed at Rep. Elijah Cummings or Rep. Ilhan Omar.

    But according to the academic template, to criticize a “person of color” is inevitably “about race.” Mr. Buttigieg ran afoul of this rule after firing South Bend’s black police chief for secretly taping officers’ phone calls. The idea that the mayor fired the chief because he was black is absurd, yet Mr. Buttigieg inevitably faced charges of racial insensitivity. Likewise, advocates and the media deemed Mr. Trump’s nonracial denunciation of Baltimore’s leadership racist. Never mind that the victims of the city’s almost daily drive-by shootings are black. Race shields minority politicians from criticism.

    Ms. Warren recently provided an unwitting summary of academic identity politics. Mr. Trump’s “central message” to the American people, she declared, is: “If there’s anything wrong in your life, blame them—and ‘them’ means people who aren’t the same color as you.” She has in mind a white “you,” but change the race and you encapsulate the reigning assumption on college campuses—that white people are the source of nonwhite people’s problems, and any behavioral or cultural explanations for economic disparities are taboo.

    The academy’s reflexive labeling of nonconforming views as “hate speech” has also infiltrated popular rhetoric against Mr. Trump. The president’s views on border control and national sovereignty are at odds with the apparent belief among Democratic elites that people living outside the country are entitled to enter at will and without consequences for illegal entry. To the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from “hate.” Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

    Identity politics, now a driving force in the Democratic Party, celebrates the racial and ethnic identities of designated victim groups while consigning whites—especially heterosexual white men—to scapegoat status. But its advocates should be careful what they wish for. If “whiteness” is a legitimate topic of academic and political discourse, some individuals are going to embrace “white identity” proudly.

    To note the inevitability of white identity politics in no way condones the grotesque violence of men like the El Paso killer. But the dominant culture is creating a group of social pariahs, a very small percentage of whom—already unmoored from traditional sources of meaning and stability, such as family—are taking their revenge through stomach-churning mayhem. Overcoming racial divisiveness will be difficult. But the primary responsibility rests with its main propagators: the academic left and its imitators in politics and mass media.

  6. Dr. Turley –

    Do you really think Trump started this? For 40 years, the Press and the Dems have openly smeared and lied about conservatives constantly calling them names and getting the Press to run the Telescreen to repeat the lies over and over until certain parts of the citizenry believe them.

    Sharyl Atkisson did a superb job defining how the liberals have used lies and innuendo to smear and ruin conservatives for the last few decades. It is formulated, calculated lies by smear lie machines like Media Matters, George Soros, Blumenthal, and now almost the entire Democrat party. For decades, conservatives just minded their own business, knowing these lies were pure propaganda and hoping that brains and logic could defeat these lies.

    Finally, we realized that these years of Democrat propaganda and lies had to be confronted and mocked for what they were. Trump did that. Many of us would prefer not to have that be the new normal but 40years of Dem/liberal lies and smears needed to be shut down and stopped. The Dems/libs have broken down civil society and are now intent on destroying basic principles of decency, democracy, freedom and civil society that America needs to be. We are exceptional and the world would be a far better place if more countries were like we are now. If we become like the Venezuela’s, Argentina’s, CHina’s or even the Italy’s and France’s of the world, the world will be a far worse place. But that’s what the Dems want.

    1. “Do you really think Trump started this?”

      Of course not. He is running a blog and giving his trolls on the Left and Right reason to come back and act bat shit crazy. Without his shill headlines what would people like Anon1, Jerry, Hill,, Allan, Paul, Karen, Kurtz, et al do with their miserable lonely, bored existence?

      Carry on

      1. The question is what would this scared anonymous do without anonymity? Change your diapers already. They stink.

  7. It’s a common ploy used by the left when they are ‘on the ropes’ to pretend they are the other side, pretend they invented the other sides plan or idea, then claim it as their own exhibiting a fractured left as the fall guy such as A Pelosillyni or Schumerite versus the left.

    You recall Clinton openly stated she was a Socialist until it backfired on her and then tried to recant but it didn’t work because no one at least in the Constitutional Centrist group who are largely non-affiliated independents massed together to vote anti left and pro Constitutionalist.

    Not Republican, Not conservative which must means preserve the status quo but Constitutionalist.

    Next thing you know their candidates will be claiming Al Gore wrote the BUT if elected they have and will go back to their socialist system. They cannot be trusted and they are mot democratic they are DINOs but then are third target was RINOs for the same reason.

    Nothing hard to figure out they start each day knowing they can iek cheat, steal, whatever and it’s ok if it serves The Party and The Party is pure socialist of one kind or another and is not by any means democratic.

    Method of defeat. vote No to any of them regardless of which name they are using first.; we used to put Clinton first but not the remnants of The Party and The Collective are first and RINOs are second.

    See how far they will go. This week they are back to loving DACAs who they rejected three times including once with all the illegals but it doesn’t mean they will give them the vote because of the strawman of abortion rights which isn’t even necessary anymore.

      1. think about this. a bunch of cops wrestle Garner to the ground. He dies of some kind of cardiopulmonary thing. Lots of bruising and stuff, maybe due to CPR efforts, but no larynx, cricoid, hyoid damage. maybe he had his neck compressed on purpose or maybe because he was twice the size of pantaleo who was holding on to him like a bucking bull, he compressed his own neck. but pantaleo gets fired, even if not prosecuted.

        another guy Epstein hangs himself in his cell with his sheet, somehow not only suffocates himself but manages to break his hyoid bone, even though there was no distance for a drop, just a slow strangle

        in one case cops doing their job a guy dies sadly and cops get blamed

        in another case jail guards not doing their job a guy dies not so sadly, maybe the hacks get blamed, maybe not

        hmmm, life is strange

  8. We hear much from the hordes of political pundits about “presidential rhetoric” with nary a murmur about how it is to be defined and to whom does it apply. We are told during this campaign season just as in every other that a sitting president’s rhetoric must always rise above that of those would-be presidents who intend to serve the Nation next. If indeed their intention is to be a president, then what of their “presidential rhetoric” should we expect?

    These days in particular the pots are all out and about calling the kettle black and making no excuses for the fact that they own the very weakness they decry. They are covetous persons inveighing against an intemperance they share, ravens who chide blackness, and hypocrites who cast stones that rebound to fall upon themselves.

    So far, at least seven Democratic presidential contenders have escalated their criticism of Trump calling him a “white supremacist” outright. Other candidates have shied away from using the harsh label, but instead have said he enables and encourages white supremacy across the country, claiming he’s using divisive language as a political strategy. And all that despite Trump saying, “In one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

    Nothing can be more divisive than the Democratic presidential contenders playing loose and careless with rhetoric. The Democrats wanting to be the next president should not be allowed to hold with the hare and run with the hounds. The pundits should know there is still a part of the playing field that needs to be leveled.

  9. I don’t have a problem with the nick names. Here’s a small sample:

    Slick Willy….Bill Clinton
    Machine Gun Kelly…..George Kelly Barnes
    Iceman…..Richard Kuklinski
    Joe Bananas….Joseph Bonanno
    Pocahontas…..Elizabeth Warren
    Orange Man….Donald Trump or Dutch-born Protestant king William of Orange

  10. “While correctly criticizing President Trump for many of his comments, the Democrats have been engaging in almost identical commentary with little coverage.”

    This comment seems to indicate that this is a recent development. It most certainly is not. Democrats have called Republicans evil for decades in academia, the mainstream media, politics, and Hollywood. What we are used to are Republican Presidents taking the high ground. “Republicans want to throw Grandma off a cliff” and all that.

    I recall when I would criticize Obamacare under President Obama, I was told that I hated the poor. When I showed concern that schools were giving free breakfast, lunch, and even dinner to kids, without even checking their financial need or avoiding overlapping services, I was told that I wanted poor kids to die. Any support of the 2nd Amendment meant I wanted mass shootings. This is the way it has been for decades. If you disagree with Democratic policy, they don’t argue policy, employ Saul Alinsky’s technique, demonizing their enemies.

    Yes, there are people on both sides of the aisle who resort to ad hominem, but this harassment of conservatives has been an observable trend, as has the Leftist politicization of academia.

    The outrage against Trump’s rudeness is hypocritical. He mirrors Democrat ad hominem. They are just not used to hearing their own vile language used against them. I remember how shocked Democrats were that Trump called Warren a “nasty woman.” There was a merchandizing bonanza, and Judd shook with rage. However, I also remember that prominent Democrats had called Trump nasty before, during, and after that. So, their outrage and hysteria was the pot calling the kettle black. Then there was the severed head, the meme about throwing children with MAGA hats head first, screaming, into the wood chipper. The Tweet fantasizing about throwing Baron Trump into a cage with pedophiles. The same people criticize the lack of civility from the White House without a shred of irony or self awareness.

    I really hate this mud slinging no matter where it originates. It is also true that if you don’t stand up to a bully, they will become emboldened. We have seen this, in the proliferation of bigotry and bias against conservatives infiltrating K-grad school and the mainstreaming of ad hominem against Republicans over analysis of policy or consequences. However, Trump’s response should be both firm and effective. Descending to the same level is not solving the problem. There are those who support Trump expressly because they are fed up with just sitting there and being called vile names by people who cannot or will not debate policy. They want a politician to stand up for them. However, Trump is not communicating what Republicans stand for when he’s trading insults.


    1. “This is the way it has been for decades. If you disagree with Democratic policy, they don’t argue policy, employ Saul Alinsky’s technique, demonizing their enemies.”


      The Left savaged Barbara Bush as she was dying and yet they defended their “right to free speech”

      Trump should not hold back. Pelosi silenced AOC who now appears to be mute. Pelosi weekly thrashes Trump and Dims crucified Justice Kanaugh, nay, Justice Thomas

      President Trump did Americans a favor by encouraging Americans to fight back. Dims can kill babies well we can fight back without Antifa masks and cement milkshakes.

      Trump 2020


    2. Karen is a moral and manners cripple if she thinks Trump’s level of discourse is either similar or reflective of any other presidents, leaders, or major public figures of any kind. If Obama had acted that way she would have had a stroke, and rightly so. Saying “leftists” have said similar things is a nice cop out as that covers everyone from Angela Davis to Abbie Hoffman. No one of stature in either major party has acted like the moral pig her leader is, happily up to this time. Simple and direct non personal criticism – you’re the f…ing president, not group leader in some reality show house – draws a stupid and gross response from him, while meanwhile the countries problems are ignored or used as props in his infantile low life vendettas.

      Karen’s defense of this low life is a reflection of either her intelligence or moral fitness. If she doesn’t get it bow – she doesn’t – she will eventually and will try to pretend she wasn’t part of it.

      1. “Karen’s defense of this low life is a reflection of either her intelligence or moral fitness. ”

        She appeared to be a supporter of Rocky A$AP, FWIW. And Gavin McInnes is an okay guy, too, in her book.

      2. “No one of stature in either major party has acted like the moral pig her leader is, happily up to this time.” You should re-read the blog post, as well as past blog posts. This behavior has been discussed by our host over the years. Unless you believe that Jonathan Turley is a “moral and manners cripple?”

        Also, people whose comments are one continuous stream of vicious, vile ad hominem have no business criticizing anyone’s decorum. You seem compulsive.

        Everyone should try to analyze policies, consequences, and issues in a non personal way, from the President to rage filled blog commenters.

    3. You claim: “The outrage against Trump’s rudeness is hypocritical. He mirrors Democrat ad hominem. They are just not used to hearing their own vile language used against them.”

      OK, just when did ANY Democratic President ever call people names like Trump does? Name one. In fact, name ANY Republican President who ever engaged in such name-calling. You cannot because there aren’t any.

      You say you support Trump because you don’t like being called vile names, and that Trump opponents cannot or will not debate policy. What policy are you referring to?

      This is the second recent post of yours in which you claim to be the victim of ad hominem attacks.

      1. I sometimes get the impression that Natacha is an elementary school student. Maybe on a home study plan after her failed lapband surgery.

      2. Natacha – you appear to be in complete denial about the level of bigotry, harassment, and attacks on conservatives that have become mainstreamed.

        There were trolls that said terrible things about Obama, but it did not occur in any mainstream source, such as academia, K-12, Hollywood (with the exception of indie movies), the mainstream media, social media, GOOGLE, Youtube…

        There was a tremendous uproar at the very mild, while indecorous, “You lie!” in Congress hurled at Obama. I wonder what the reaction would have been if a comedian posed with Obama’s bloody, severed head. Or if prominent people said his girls should be thrown into a cage with pedophiles. Or if the bloody head of Disney said that children who wore Hope and Change hats should be fed, hat first, screaming, into a wood chipper.

        I agree that previous presidents in modern times have not spoken this way. Republican presidents just ignored the attacks, which allowed Democrats to define what they stood for. They, too, were called Fascist Nazis, but they just figured people would be intelligent enough to see through the hyperbole. Apparently not. Democrat Presidents were not called Fascist Nazi racist xenophobes homophobes who wanted to send out death vans and kill all the Jews every single day for years through mainstream sources. So why would they engage in such rhetoric? Obama was not called a Russian spy based on opposition research. He did not have the politicized FBI spying upon his campaign and working for his demise. There was not a soft coup attempt. The worst mainstream criticism Obama got was the common refrain that people who win the Nobel Peace Prize (before accomplishing anything) should not have kill lists. Or that he was destroying health care. That’s not personal. Major news anchors were not mocking the color of his skin like they do Trump.

        Do you really not understand this? There have been blog posts on this topic over the past few years. Perhaps you should revisit them.

        If you do not understand ad hominem, then look it up.

        I do want Trump to stop rolling in the mud, and when he fights, to do so more effectively than simplistic name calling. However, that requires politicians and academics to stop such behavior as wishing his immediate and painful death, and calling him vile names.

        You and Anon1 are good examples of how it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about politics with hard Leftists. You both just explode into the most vile name calling. This is a trend among the Left, unfortunately. Do you lack self awareness, or is this how you really want to be in life? You don’t ask questions about anyone’s positions, or say you disagree and here’s why, to have some sort of back and forth or meeting of the minds. You have no interest in common ground, nor try to understand the other side. Aren’t you tired?

        It reminds me of how a friend’s mother, a Democrat herself, stopped her standing lunch with her friends, because all they talked about the entire time was how Trump was some (insert horrible ad hominem) and all of his Trumpsters were (insert horrible ad hominem). It was all attacks all the time, every single day, until she just didn’t want any part of it anymore.

        Does it register how other people view you when you behave this way?

        Please also try to improve your reading comprehension, because once again you have got it wrong:

        “You say you support Trump because you don’t like being called vile names.” No. What I actually said was, “There are those who support Trump expressly because they are fed up with just sitting there and being called vile names by people who cannot or will not debate policy.” In the exact same post, I also said,

        “I really hate this mud slinging no matter where it originates.”
        “However, Trump’s response should be both firm and effective. Descending to the same level is not solving the problem.”
        “However, Trump is not communicating what Republicans stand for when he’s trading insults.”

        I routinely criticize Trump here, when it is warranted. I have repeatedly said that I disagree with ad hominem, not just twice, and have called out the decades long bigotry against Republicans. I also reprove his critics where warranted.

        Since I oppose socialism, misandry, and racist identity politics, I’m obviously not going with the Democrat ticket in 2020.

        1. Karen at last admits that other presidents and national public figures have not been in the mud like Trump. Thanks for that critical clarification. We’re making progress.

          Two points:

          1. This behavior of his is not some reaction and reflection of mud being thrown at conservatives, or even him. He came into the primaries acting this way against supposedly fellow conservatives. He jumped on the stupid racist birther movement as his entree into politics, and before that was a reality tv star. This is who he is – a pig, It has nothing to do with conservative principles he’s defending. Ask Ted Cruz.
          2. The real snow flakes here are people like Karen who are hyper sensitive to slurs from the “left” – could be anyone – while failing to recognize that those of us on the opposite side are slurred by the “right” regularly – read them here if you doubt it. Toughen up. That’s democracy. One of her favorites is how MAGA gear is dangerous. Where I live, Obama gear is what will get you in a fight while there’s no shortage of Trump stickers on pick-up window next to the gun rack.

          Karen needs to reconsider her position. Trump is not her and other conservatives’ champion. He is is own only and he will and has turned on a dime against conservatives if they threaten his fragile ego.

            1. Paul you dummy. I think Karen is the one should be talking to about this. She regularly complains about the danger MAGA followers face in America. I merely pointed out that it depends on where you live on what’s acceptable and safe attire.

              I’m in construction and know my way around the site and redneck bars.

          1. You want class acts in public life, anon1, your ilk shouldn’t have spent 70 years trashing manners and standards of respectable conduct. You’re living in ruins you helped create. Enjoy it.

          2. ” Ask Ted Cruz.”

            Ted Cruz moved on something Anon is unable to do. Trump won the election and is now President. Trump and Cruz deal very well with one another and Anon is the troubled individual on the corner yelling inanities day after day. There is a room waiting for him at the nearest psychiatric facility.

            1. How the NYTimes has been feeding TDS intravenously for almost 3 years. They have switched the IV drugs from ‘Hoax’ to ‘Racism’ to keep their readership drugged.

              The New York Times Is the Trump-Hate Drug Kingpin
              If Russian collusion has been the opiate of the Trump-hating masses for more than two years, the New York Times was one of its biggest suppliers.

              Since late 2016, desperate to drown their sorrows over Donald Trump’s shocking win, political junkies on the Left and NeverTrump Right eased their inner pain with a daily collusion fix injected courtesy of the Gray Lady. With one click on the front page or opinion section, Times’ readers could satisfy their anti-Trump addiction while making them feel, if only for a few fleeting moments, powerful and in control.

              Pain would give way to rage, then a false sense of hope. Surely the man installed by Vladimir Putin would never serve out his term, they would say to themselves while feeding their insatiable craving. And just as the high wore off, the Times would offer another hit, provoking hallucinations about Trump and his corrupt family being hauled out of the White House in handcuffs by Robert Mueller.

              So, in a way, you can’t blame the Times for obsessively covering the fabricated Trump-Russia collusion storyline. It’s what successful drug dealers do—keep their customers hooked on a steady drip of dope and desperate for more.

              The paper’s executive editor admitted as much during a closed-door meeting with dozens of Times’ reporters on August 11, after a somewhat positive front-page headline about the president enraged Times staff and readers.

              – Is this gang on Vicki day? 00:00
              The daily supply of Russian collusion dope dried up, but Trump-hating addicts don’t need rehab just yet: The Times is stocking up another toxic potion—white supremacy—to poison the body politic and cure any collusion withdrawal symptoms.

              Pivoting to the failed effort to prove that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to sway the 2016 election, Dean Baquet confessed his news organization trafficked the collusion drug until it lost its potency.

              “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think,” Baquet said during a “crisis town hall meeting” at the paper’s headquarters last week.

              “And I think that the story changed,” he added. “A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”


              The Daily Fix

              Let’s take a peek at what the Russian collusion “story” looked like at the Times for two years. Since January 2017, the paper has mentioned Special Counsel Robert Mueller more than 3,100 times. His investigation is inserted into nearly every article about President Trump and his administration, even as late as this week.

              After regurgitating every Democratic-sourced talking point on Russian election interference beginning in June 2016—Russians hacked the DNC email server; Trump asked the Russians to conduct “cyberespionage” against the Clinton campaign; Trump is a Putin stooge and would do the Russian president’s bidding in the White House—the Times published almost-daily warnings about Trump’s ties to Russia after Election Day. The pace hastened after Obama officials and Trump foes on both the Left and Right demanded a formal investigation into whether Trump and his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to help him win the presidency.

              “The American people must immediately demand a cessation of all consequential actions by this ‘president’ until we can be assured that Russian efforts to hack our election, in a way that was clearly meant to help him and damage his opponent, did not also include collusion with or coverup by anyone involved in the Trump campaign and now administration,” ranted Times’ columnist Charles Blow on March 6, 2017.

              When former FBI Director James Comey finally confirmed in March 2017 that his agency had been investigating members of the Trump campaign since July 2016, the Times’ editorial board concluded Trump’s Justice Department could not conduct a fair investigation.

              “Appointing a special prosecutor would show that [former Attorney General Jeff] Sessions is willing to have an impartial examination of his actions as a surrogate for Trump last year—which he has assured the public were entirely appropriate,” the editorial said.

              After Trump fired Comey, the Times compared it to Watergate, insisted it was what Putin wanted, and then elevated Comey to hero-worship status. (The vocal Trump foe is now an occasional contributor to the Times’ opinion page.)

              Then, on May 16, 2017, the Times published details from a memo Comey wrote and intentionally leaked to the paper that claimed Trump asked him to shut down the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Comey later admitted he leaked the memo, an action that is itself under investigation, in order to “prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

              The next day, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a friend and former colleague of Comey’s, as a special counsel empowered to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The move was met with effusive praise at the Times.

              From that point forward, the Times published at least a few columns, editorials or news articles every day about the special counsel’s probe.

              Its readers went on a full-blown bender.

              Doom-Laden Obsessions

              The Times repeatedly applauded Mueller’s hardball prosecutorial tactics, as long as they were used against any Trump associate. One Times reporter even eavesdropped on a private lunch conversation between two of Trump’s lawyers in September 2017 discussing how to handle the Mueller probe. Daily drama about whether Trump would fire the special counsel before Mueller had a chance to indict the president dominated the paper’s coverage, acting both as a stimulant and a depressant for Times’ readers. According to the paper, Trump “attacked” the Russia investigation more than 1,100 times.

              The paper was obsessed with a 20-minute meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and the “Russian lawyer” at the Trump Tower in June 2016; dozens of articles and opinion pieces predicted doom for the president’s son and insisted the brief meeting was the clearest evidence of election collusion.

              Conveniently, however, the paper of record repeatedly failed to disclose the Russian lawyer’s ties to Fusion GPS, the firm hired by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign to produce the Steele dossier.

              As House Republicans honed in on the political origins of Comey’s counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign and the handling of the dossier, the Times offered a big assist: A drunken chat between a low-level campaign aide and an Australian diplomat triggered the FBI’s unprecedented investigation into an American presidential campaign.

              “It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies,” the Times’ assured readers in December 2017.

              In fact, the Times ran plenty of cover for the perpetrators of the bogus Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

              Steele, Comey, former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Peter Strzok, former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former CIA Director John Brennan and others were alternatively American heroes and victims of Trump. So is House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), despite his lies to the American people about proof of Russian collusion.

              The Times published several op-eds authored by Fusion GPS owners to defend themselves, ironically accusing House Republicans of wrecking “careers and reputations” with their own investigations.

              No allegation or crumb of evidence was too far fetched for the Times. A September 2018 report claimed that the reason why Justice Department official Bruce Ohr was in frequent contact with Christopher Steele in 2016 and 2017 wasn’t because the British operative was working as a lobbyist for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, it was because they were plotting a super secret “oligarch-flipping” plan.


              Rock Bottom? Not Quite

              As the release of the Mueller report loomed, the Times made all sorts of predictions about how the document might serve as a roadmap for impeachment and/or prosecution. (In fact, Times articles were cited roughly 75 times in the Mueller report, more than any other news organization; Maggie Haberman, a Times reporter and Trump antagonist, appears several times in the footnotes.)

              Then came the crash.

              Not only did Team Mueller fail to find proof of collusion, the deified prosecutor turned in an abysmal performance before Congress last month. The daily supply of Russian collusion dope dried up, but Trump-hating addicts don’t need rehab just yet: The Times is stocking up another toxic potion—white supremacy—to poison the body politic and cure any collusion withdrawal symptoms.

              Folks like Baquet can only be held partially responsible: There is no supply if there’s no demand. The Times’ readers demand that their Trump-hating addiction is satisfied every day—the Times is just doing what any corner-hustling dealer would do to delay their customers’ sobriety.

      3. Natacha – I will name you one Democratic President who called people names. He also pulled his c*ck out in public to show the reporters to show how big it was and pulled his dogs up by their ears. LBJ.

        1. Paul C………..I’ve said this before, but when I remind Trump hating Democrat acquaintances here in central texas about Lyndon, they do not care!
          No matter how gross and vile the Lyndon story, they just laugh/shrug it off……You have to see it in person to truly experience the depth of their apathy. It’s chilling.

        2. Was that story about the second shower head ever substantiated? There is someone I can ask, but there is no way I’m calling him to ask about the President’s member. Hmmm, how to work this into the conversation next time I see him and his wife…

          1. Karen……Basic rule of thumb in evaluationg Lyndon stories: Do not believe any story in which he thought about, and looked out for, anyone other than himself.

  11. It seems to me the Clintons were guilty of almost everything that the democrats blamed on Trump as far as Russia goes

  12. Elections in the US today are so far from founding fathers’ reality there’s no comparison.
    Today races are sometimes decided by amount of money spent on TV ads. There are not two “mysides” unchanging. Advertising pays. Lying with the truth is an art. Propaganda works.

    In those days so long ago only property owners — taxpayers — voted. And they voted for a representative they trusted to represent their interests, protect their rights to property, guard their earnings, spend their taxes wisely. The elite among the landowners were powerful in state politics. Each state would send two of these political creatures as senators. They were representing the interests and power of the state leadership who appointed them.

    Political Party is the pinnacle of mysideism outside of courtrooms.

    The founders knew this and so the presidential elections were to be non-partisan. Each local region in the several states would select someone to elect the next president for them in an electoral college. A wise businessman perhaps, or a prominent judge. Someone whose judgement could be trusted.

  13. Trump is the only Republican candidate who has read Rules for Radicals and uses them. The left can dish it out but it cannot take it. Bunch of whiners.

  14. JT’s ignorant whataboutism is off the rails. Virtually nothing posted about 2 mass shootings while two long columns on a woman who slapped someone says all you need to know about his ignorance and irrelevancy.

    1. Anon1 – your comment raises the serious question of, if JT is ignorant and irrelevant, why do you read his blog? Isn’t that an extraordinary waste of your time?

      1. it’s his duty to disrupt the appearance of agreement on basic issues of common sense and project democrat talking points into cyberspace instead

      2. FFS, I scan his columns, which I surprisingly – seeing him on TV I expected a balanced and intelligent discussion of important issues – found to be mostly about irrelevancies. It’s not like important things aren’t happening so writing twice about a woman slapping someone – or teachers going to Venezuela (WGAFFF!) – is just stupid. I stay here to slap people like kurtz and Karen around. They need it.

        1. you’re not slapping me, just slapping your own mental salami

          i enjoy your comments however inane they are, don’t quit!
          I will think you must have succumbed to old age too soon. that would be a pity

          1. In her own mind, anon1 is invincible. She actually seems to believe that she “kicks ass” or slaps people around in any discussion since she has this delusional self-image that she is really brilliant.
            I think we should feed that need and tell her that yes, you are soooo smart and soooo clever.
            She could not handle the honest appraisal that she is a not-too-bright, obnoxious fraud.

  15. Trump attacks his enemies using the bully pulpit — hardly original. See every President from Washington onward. As for the Dims, we’ll they are using the same tactics. Again, nothing new. This attack on judges is sort of new if you ignore FDR’s court packing scam in the 30s. For what it’s worth, I have no problem with a politician or citizen, for that matter, attacking a judge who overreaches. He’s an u-nelected government official and shouldn’t be free from censors. Practically speaking, he’s/she’s immune from democratic processes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? When I see federal district court judges issue injunctions affecting the entire operation of national government, I do find that overreaching. And that’s what Trump is reacting to — and doing something about.

    1. BS mespo. No president ever spent 1/2 his day hurling middle school level personal insults at anyone who criticized him and caught his attention. No adult behaves this way.

      1. ha ha come on. politics has always been very much about hurling insults or their milder cousins, “criticisms”

        1. kurtz, you flatter Trump. His insults aren’t about politics, they’re about his puerile personal vendettas. So are his politics. Teenage girls send out smarter tweets.

  16. This is politics today. The reason to vote for someone is because they want to make you hate the other person. Policies are secondary. Every juvenile insult is met with more. In a nation with the attention span of about 24 hours maybe that is the winning strategy for politics but certainly a losing one for good governance.

  17. “The result is a type of liberal exceptionalism.”

    LBJ channeled hate and fear like never before in politics against his opponent, Goldwater. Democrats built on his successes with Roe v Wade: kill, kill, kill but call it choice, rights, health

    Democrats manipulate words, redefine their meanings, to their advantage

    We are a sad nation and Democrats started it in the 1960s. Trump is merely using their nastiness and how they hate it. Recall how they treated Ronald Reagan in his 2nd term, and how they shredded Nancy Reagan nonstop. Look at how they disparage Melania Trump and her son. Shameful.

    This will not end well. So be it.

    At least we have the means to defend ourselves thanks to the 2nd Amendment


    1. Anonymous………well, I don’t know who you are, but yours is a great comment. And factual.
      We’ve tried the Emily Post, pristinely dignified approach to Presidential behavior…..like, with the much revered, by some, FDR.
      Roosevelt denied sanctuary for the ship St. Louis, which was filled with European Jews escaping the Nazis. Those Jews were returned to Europe, and many murdered in the Nazi camps because of FDR’s deadly, selfish action! But didn’t he sound pretty doing it?
      Great job, Fancy pants Franklin!

      Trump is not our pastor, not our mentor, not our Sunday School teacher. He is our rightfully elected president, who is sworn to uphold the laws of the land. Period. The constitution does not specify how he should look or sound when he does that. So why are we talking about it? Seems silly.

      1. It does seem silly, Cindy. Especially when he says what a lot of us are actually thinking and saying ourselves. And the Dims on the other side are giving voice to their supporters as well – see how Anon1, Natacha, Hill, etc write? They are echoed by Pelosi, Shumer, etc.

    2. they are very cunning but they’re a bunch of mercenaries who have few if any ethical self limitations, and little or no regard for their own people. that’s the real shame.

  18. Observing and stating the truth isn’t the same as demeaning nicknames used by the president. There is no equivalency here.

    1. Holmes, JT didn’t ask for an illustration of Myside bias in the comments, but I’m sure he appreciates your most perfect example of his point!! Good job!!!

      1. Many of the other comments are much better examples. Just take a read….if you are pure of heart you will see what I mean.

    2. So it’s OK for Pelosi to call McConnel a “Moscow” stooge (a treasonous traitor deserving the death penalty) when McConnel doesn’t vote with Pelosi?

      The irony of you proving Turley’s point is truly superb, especially while ostensibly disagreeing with it.

      Please, do post more!

      1. Princess brings up an interesting point, even though she misses the fact that her snide remark on McConnel was both well earned and smart – she didn’t call him “low IQ” or “ugly”. Given that McConnell as a Senate leader has done nothing to defend the Senate and it’s members from the gross behavior of the pig in the WH, he deserves and in effect welcomes similar behavior from others.

        Did you all labor under the false sense that what goes around doesn’t come around, that a lowered bar doesn’t welcome everyone to take the low road? As I pointed out above, your hero isn’t on your side, he’s not defending conservatism or the GOP, and he’ll turn on anyone one of them if they cross him. There is no greater principle at work. He came into the GOP primary the same way he’s acting in the WH toward perceived enemies. They can change any time. Ask Ted Cruz. His father was called a murderer and his wife a dog.

Leave a Reply