Donald Trump

Look Who's Defending Donald Trump

The enemy of the media is many conservatives' friend. Particularly those in the media.

|

Caution! ||| Fox News
Fox News

On Monday, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly gave Donald Trump an appropriately challenging interview about the latter's controversial comments about John McCain's war-heroism. On Tuesday, however, O'Reilly became the latest conservative-media personality to rise to the Donald's qualified defense, in the form of an attack on the political press. You can watch the video at Mediaite; here's the full transcript of O'Reilly's "Tip of the Day"t:

The media [is] despising Donald Trump, and here's why: He has no fear, he could not care less about censoring himself, and the press does not intimidate him. So because of that approach, the media believe that they must punish Mr. Trump, for being disrespectful and not cowering before them. Plus they don't like his politics, generally speaking.

[The] press [is] a very powerful force in America; given special privilege by the Founding Fathers, and if the press deems someone unworthy, they will try to destroy that person. That's where Donald Trump finds himself today.

Factor Tip of the Day: Unfortunately the American media, although there are exceptions, are not looking out for you [points at camera]. They have an agenda, these people, and they often use that agenda in corrupt ways [wags finger]. You as a media consumer should walk away when you see that happen.

Happier times. ||| TNT
TNT

This passage, I think, explains a lot about modern conservatism, about Trump's poll numbers (in both directions: leading the pack and drawing the highest unfavorables), and about how anti-media sentiment overrides so many other values, even/especially among the conservative media establishment itself.

The biggest applause lines in Trump's July 11 speech at FreedomFest were not the anguished anecdotes about illegal-immigrant criminality, or the blingy braggadocio about his wealth and success, but the repeated attacks on the media. (Typically for the billionaire, these attacks were shot through with hyperbole and inaccuracy, such as his claim to have attracted the biggest crowd at the conference, and his complaint that journalists only publish "half-sentences" of such Trump-nuggets as "The American dream is dead," the second half of which you can read in plenty of other places.) This receptivity to media-bashing is squarely in keeping in what I observed at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference—the biggest crowdpleasing moments, from Ted Cruz to Carly Fiorina to Jeb Bush to Sean Hannity, were digs at the perfidy of the press.

Like all great feedback loops, the hate-hate relationship between Republicans and the media contains usable truth on both sides. Conservatives are right that the media leans overwhelmingly left, and that it portrays them unfairly, sometimes with barely concealed loathing. And journalists are correct to point out that the temporal figureheads of the populist, anti-media right—Donald Trump today, Herman Cain yesterday, Sarah Palin the day before that—say and believe and occasionally do a lot of seriously goofy things. Perhaps most importantly of all, the rest of America is right to treat the media, the political establishment, and the Republican Party with escalating disdain. Journalistic fascination with conservative caricatures can drive entire news cycles far away from any critique of actual power. Many segments of the press were treating Obamacare-related comments from the out-of-work Palin more seriously than those by the sitting president as recently as 2011.

The three great waves of conservative-media creation—talk radio, Fox News, and post-9/11 websites—were each fueled by a visceral resentment toward being surrounded on all sides by a hostile media establishment. Once a new technology opens up, pissed-off conservatives like Andrew Breitbart come gushing through. So it's no accident that the long-running kings of each medium (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Matt Drudge) have provided among the most sympathetic venues for Donald Trump, for the same reason that Ben Carson and Ted Cruz have been the most reticent in the GOP presidential field to pile on. All of them rely on animus toward the media and establishment, no matter how establishmentarian in their own way each has become. Rush Limbaugh's discussion of the Trump/McCain feud earlier this week included the word "media" 20 times.

By judging that the enemy of their enemy might well be a friend, the conservative anti-establishment Establishment has been taking some lumps from other right-of-center commentators (start here and here and here, and work back from the links). It's hard not to see why. Aside from his sins against libertarianism and basic comportment, Trump makes for a pretty lousy Republican. And his persistent untethering from the truth makes a mockery of the claim that the conservative-media corrective is particularly concerned with being correct.

As I concluded this 2004 column about the tension within conservative media,

"Because you ignored us," Breitbart says, "because you ignored Rush and Drudge and God knows who else, we decided to go out and create our media. And I think that what we're doing is building up something that may be bigger and better."

Bigger, probably. Better, arguably. More factual…we'll see.

NEXT: ACLU Challenges Arizona's Forfeiture Laws: 'This Racket Has to Stop'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ugh, so now we all have to start liking O’Reilly?

    1. NO…No…no…please no.

    2. If you start liking O’Reilly, YOU BETTER DO IT LIVE!

    3. Did he actually say anything that was either right or admirable?

      1. I would love for a reporter to ask Trump, in a real press conference interview, “Mr. Trump, why are you so much of a cunt? I mean, really. You the biggest asshole I’ve ever seen. Why?”

        1. Mr. Trump, how much longer till your fifth Chapter 11 bankruptcy? Which investors will be getting bilked this time?

          1. That’s his master plan–to bankrupt the U.S. No other candidate has the experience that he does in that regard.

            1. But he’ll get to keep a minority stake after the creditors get screwed. 20% or something totally reasonable like that.

            2. Going into bankruptcy for this government is exactly the right thing to do. If you don’t get that it needs to stop spending money it doesn’t have, you should be voting Democrat or “establishment” Republican. Trump’s experience would be very helpful.
              But let’s just trash a clown instead!

              1. Problem is, Trump keeps on spending other people’s money and just repeats the process ad infinitum. Now, if you’re done being retarded, we’d like to have an adult discussion.

        2. Your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

          1. And has the same destination.

            1. Reference failure.

              Perhaps someone should feed Trump a 3-eyed fish.

              1. If you tangle with him, he would crush you like a paper cup.

          2. Booo-urns!

          3. Booo-urns!

            1. I was saying boo-urns…

      2. Hugh, stop being a pinhead. O’Reilly’s just looking out for the folks. Which you obviously are not.

        And that’s a memo….

      3. I thought the H&R standard was basic contrarianism.

        1. I’m only a contrarian in sports.

        2. Standards?

        3. No no no. The H&R standard is to stand up to cocktail-swilling hipster cosmotarian scumbags who only say things that no one could possibly believe in order to get invited to parties with the Beltway cool kids.

          You make it sounds like the commentariat here is a bunch of retarded dogs barking at the sound of a doorbell on TV. But no matter how socially conservative, militarist, or straight-up bigoted they may sound, there is a carefully considered theory behind every seemingly idiotic response. You would understand that if you were a real libertarian and a real American.

          1. Aha. Well there’s my problem I guess.

          2. That’s one of the best things I’ve read on here in a long time, Hugh. Kudos.

            1. (It’s true)

              1. (It’s true)

                But it’s not funny!

            2. Every once in a while Hugh manages to remind you that he’s more than just a pretty face and supple behind.

              1. But that just makes me want to grope him harder!

                1. You guys are just saying nice things about me to be H&R contrarians.

              2. Not MUCH more, but still.

          3. Thank you, there’s so few people nowadays willing to stand up and make the sophisticated argument that everyone who disagrees with them is a stupid bigot.

    4. O’Reilly is the president that America deserves.

        1. I thought that was hannity?

          1. There are many great americans. which is what makes a country great.

            1. I was under the impression we were using the “highlander” system. There can be only one great American!

    5. What makes you think that? I I get the feeling Welch wants us to hate one of them more by association with the first.

      If anything, this article seems to say “I hate Trump. Don’t you hate Trump? Trump is a Chump. Trump is a Dump. Trump is baaaaaad. But, in case you needed another reason to hate The Donald, we have another guy we hate, O’Reilly, who seems to like him. So, there you go, more reason to hope for a Trump slump dump.”

      Also, Trump is way to fun to rhyme. Why don’t we have more of this?

      1. Welsh has really got a stick up his ass for Trump. He’s usually rational and smart.

        1. yes what could a smart rational person have against Donald Trump? thats a real head scratcher. or knuckle dragger, as the case may be.

  2. I wonder if a truly unbiased news source emerged, would it be wildly successful for providing a valuable service or would it be despised for being too honest? I personally get most/all my news here because the commenters balance out any writer bias with their own bias.

    1. Fuckin’ cosmo WOULD say that….

      /sarc

    2. It would be decried by all sides for being in the pocket of the other sides.

      1. You’re in the pocket of Big Pocket!!!!

        1. Pshaw, I AM Big Pocket!

          1. It’s pockets all the way down

            1. Where do pocket protectors fit in?
              *places index finger to chin*

              1. I was wondering about Big Pocket Pool.

    3. I actually don’t care about bias, I care about bias masquerading as objectivity.

      1. Yup. Newspapers were always biased, but they used to at least be honest about it.

      2. Agreed. Bias is fine (and often unavoidable). It’s bias claiming to be objectivity that’s the worst by far. The greatest offender, in my opinion, is the Glenn Kessler’s “Fact Checker” column in the Washington Post. Standard liberal hackery but posing as fact-based examination.

        Vox is another bad one

    4. “…would it be despised for being too honest?”

      The two things that the majority of humans hate more than anything else are truth and responsibility.
      Does that answer your question?

    5. It would fail because nobody would watch/read it. Witness the Christian Science Monitor which generally seems pretty fair minded and non sensationalist.

  3. I don’t care how much Reason talks about The Donald, I’m not voting for him.

    1. SOCIAL SIGNALING!!!1!!1!1

      isn’t that what we’re calling it? just checking that I’m doin it right

    2. You’re not voting for him??? That’s it, now I’m voting for him.

      1. You therefore represent Seattle Voters.

  4. The tide comes in, the tide goes out – YOU can’t explain that.

    1. Illegal rapists come here and derk er jerbs. You can’t explain that.

  5. “”The enemy of the media is many conservatives’ friend. Particularly those in the media.”

    This idiot Welch doesn’t get it. Trump matters because its the summer, a year+ away from the election. Everyone’s on vacay and doesn’t give a wet fart about politics. What they want is a blowhard to tell the media to fuck off. And there’s a great American here to do just that #MAKEAMERICAGREAT.

    1. Also, books soon to be available at sellers everywhere.

    2. There’s a lot of truth in the middle of that paragraph.

      1. could have shortened it to “ratings”

        1. There’s no poetry in “ratings” there was in your 12:55.

          #TRUMPTURNSMEDIAINTOFECESSLINGINGHOWLERMONKEYS

        2. How many handles are you running right now?

          1. ever since learning my OG GILMORE was taken from me, i don’t feel comfortable

            1. I have an idea to out the real Gilmore.

              Quick! What kind of shoes do I wear with a grey checkered jacket?!?

              1. Loafers. non tassled. duh.

                This feels right. And more emphatic. (middle finger in general direction of handle-squatter)

                1. I was going to tell you that you’re not truly formerly GILMORE if you say it in your new handle.

                  1. Now you’re just being transphobic

                2. *quickly shoots all other Gilmore handles*
                  That was a close one.

                3. This feels right. And more emphatic. (middle finger in general direction of handle-squatter)

                  Do what all the cool kidz do, when your handle gets squatted, put a period on the end of it. Boom… no one can tell the difference.

                  1. Bless you paul

                    For you see, i now have a halo, for i have been sainted by the webmasters

    3. Trump matters because he is the only Republican willing to talk about shit that people outside a very narrow clique care about.

      Sure, he’s offensive and often wrong, but at least he is talking about one of the major issues, one that Polite Society deems as being beneath their notice.

      If we were having an real discussion about immigration in this campaign, Trump would be a nobody. Since he’s the only one talking about immigration in ways that aren’t a pile of mealy-mouthed, inoffensive fluff, he’s getting traction.

      That’s the real story, I think: the Official Discussion of immigration runs the gamut from “Let them all in and give them all citizenship” (pretty much what Hillary last said) to “Let them all in, trap the law-abiding in a soul-crushing bureaucracy, and let the rest of them run loose” (pretty much the rest of the Republican field). I suspect there is a different approach that might be worth talking about.

      1. No one, especially amnesty-friendly polls on both sides of the aisles, wants to talk about the recent murders of US citizens by illegal immigrants. The most recent murders of Kate Steinle and Josh Wilkerson are being avoided like the plague by just about everyone, the media included.

        And Wilkerson’s murderer was one of Obama’s “dreamers”.

        1. That is because no one wants to tell the truth that there really isn’t a middle ground between taking shutting down the border seriously and deporting a lot of people and just saying fuck it and letting everyone in.

        2. That’s ‘undocumented humanitarians’, you xenophobic, nativist racist, hate-mongering anti science rapist.

          1. He was a dreamer Randian. No one said his dreams couldn’t involve murdering people.

            1. But did he read Word Up magazine?

              1. +1 Juicy

      2. With respect, anyone who believes that Trump believes the words coming out of his mouth is a dupe. This is a guy who is buddies with Hillary and has come out in favor of amnesty in the past.
        He’s filling a role, like the schyster John Edwards and his “2 Americas” schtick.

        1. That actually applies to most of the candidates.

  6. Trump is a cunt.

      1. blunt honesty is always poetic.

          1. And repetitive.

    1. Maybe you can make “Trunt” a thing like “turnt”

      1. Well, that’s just Trunteriffic!

    2. Yeah, I’m actually kinda fond of those wet, warm fishy things. Try one sometime – though they are an acquired taste.
      The establishment Republicans are “fecal matter” – not a fav.
      The Democrats are the cat shit my dog ate and then puked up. Go with cunt (or cock if that’s your thing.)

  7. Rush Limbaugh’s discussion of the Trump/McCain feud earlier this week included the word “media” 20 times

    To be fair isn’t talking about the “media” about half of his schtick? You should see half of John’s posts from yesterday. This isn’t to knock Rush (or John), he’s good at what he does, but it’s hardly unique to Trump Trump Trump.

    1. It’s the eternal bogey man, the other, the enemy. It’s a convenient distraction. And of course, there is some truth to it, which makes it all the more useful.

  8. Damn, Trump and O’Reilly were in the same room together? Where the hell do you find a space big enough for two heads that fat? Too bad O’Reilly didn’t invite Michael Moore to participate, P. T. Barnum would have risen from the dead to get a look at a freakshow like that.

    1. Fun Fact For The Day: Griswold v. Connecticut overturned Connecticut’s ban on birth control, which law made it through the legislature back in the Comstock days largely due to the support of the Chairman of the Temperance Committee for the House, one P. T. Barnum. (Did you even know Barnum was a state legislator, let alone an abolitionist, a prohibitionist, and a general pecksniffian busybody? Ol’ PT was the spiritual godfather of the Moral Majority. And Bill O’Reilly.)

    2. Obama had just left the room so it was amply stretched out.

  9. It’s also a bit telling that the main message from previous elections was “hope” and “change”. Now the buzz is about a guy who’s most famous tagline is “YOU’RE FIRED”.

    1. You know I would actually consider voting for the guy if he promised to fire all the underperformers in the bureaucracy. That would get about 2.5M off the dole.

  10. [The] press [is] a very powerful force in America; given special privilege by the Founding Fathers,

    I must have missed that amendment. Can someone explain to me what special privilege the “press” has that normal citizens don’t?

    1. Dumbass thinks “Freedom of the press” refers to an organization called “the press”, rather than the printing press.

      1. Regardless, the First Amendment references “the press” simply to clarify that it has the same freedom that applies to individual speech.

        But yes, I strongly dislike the idea that “the press” is a collective entity that possesses some sort of special privileges. It’s an idea one increasingly hears deployed in the defense of the status of media “gatekeepers”, and the idea that individual voices (blogs, message boards, etc.) need to be restricted in the name of combating “extremism” and propping up approved flavors of collectivism.

        1. The Press’ privilege is that they have a platform and like-minded cohorts who will promote their cause/plight in the event they get harassed by government or the police. Most of us don’t have that power and nobody knows (or cares) when we’re languishing in a jail cell somewhere. In other words, their notoriety gives them a certain amount of immunity from prosecution, as well as a higher threshold for conviction. Not fair but that’s just the way it is.

    2. Yeah that kinda pissed me off. O’Reilly is a big enough douche, he thinks he has “special” constitutional rights.

  11. Almost everything conservatives despise about progressive media is true of conservative media, just with the ideologies flipped. It’s team all the way down.

    1. Deep thinks

      1. For both teams, it’s projection all the way down.

  12. Here’s the other punchline, and one that I suspect is well-known to many of the DemOp media relentlessly flogging Trump stories:

    At this stage, the polls are almost entirely name recognition. By giving Trump wall-to-wall coverage, it is almost guaranteed that his name recognition and polls go up.

    Rand can’t buy a headline, so guess what? His polls have crashed.

    What gets Republicans headlines? Saying stupid shit. Its a seamless feedback loop at this stage of the game: Say stupid shit, get headlines, polls go up, get headlines, stay stupid shit, get headlines, polls go up . . .

    Ah, democracy.

    1. Right. What the Dems want is for Trump to get into the primary. He can’t win, unless they run him again Biden, but he CAN take all the air out of any room. As long as Trump is screaming bat shit crazy mumbo jumbo from beneath that glorious wig than nobody can hear any of the semi-reasonable (or at least coherent) things that serious candidates are saying.

    2. As you point out above, they left the field open on immigration.

    3. It’s funny, though. The media seem to understand that about Republicans, which explains the 24 hour Trump coverage, but they have a blindspot with respect to Democrats. Yes, Hillary was polling at about 70% from 2013 until last month. That’s because, in summer 2015, she’s the only name anyone has heard of. It’s not “inevitability” or any of that shit; it’s “look at this list of names and tell me if you’ve ever heard of anyone.”

  13. Here in the dog days of summer – 15 FUCKING MONTHS before they open the the fucking polls to vote for the next emperor of ‘Meriica – I wan’t a laugh and drink. A beer and a banana. I steak and a blowjob.
    The Trump is funny.
    Funny like a clown.
    He amuses me.
    Today, I vote for him.
    .

    1. yes. but i think you’re missing the ‘fuck you’ portion of people in the polling, which accounts for at least 1/3 of his “spike”

  14. Unfortunately the American media, although there are exceptions, are not looking out for you [points at camera]. They have an agenda, these people, and they often use that agenda in corrupt ways [wags finger]. You as a media consumer should walk away when you see that happen.

    Peeking out from under the faux-populist bloviation is actually a decent point. Naturally, it applies across the board, to the DemOp media and the RepOp media both. And Fox is one of the few RepOp media outlets.

  15. the public rightly hates the media. The media or the worst sort of self important ignorant scum who think they have a right to determine what people can and cannot say.

    Trump is a clown and populist demagogue. The problem for all of us is that the media is so awful and has pissed away every bit of its integrity over the last 20 years. The media in this country has no credibility or moral authority. Their only power comes from the ability to bully people by the entire mob of them screaming as loud as possible. That doesn’t work against someone who doesn’t care.

    The media is running into the same problem with Trump it ran into in gamergate. When your only power is to shame and bully, you are powerless against someone who doesn’t care what you think. While it is funny to watch them flail against Trump only to make him more popular, it is a bit scary to think we now live in a country where the media is so craven, so lacks integrity and so hated, that it is powerless to stop a populist demagogue. I don’t think that is going to work out very well.

    1. I think a lot of people are just trolling the pollsters. Even if they aren’t, polls this far from an election are little more than name recognition.

      1. I think you are right. But I also think the media is increasingly powerless to stop someone who stands up to them. That can be good or bad depending on who that someone is.

      2. You aren’t “leading” anything when polls are showing you also at the top–like insanely at the top–for DO NOT WANT.

      3. I thought that, too. For some portion of the populace supporting Trump in a poll is probably part fuck you, and partly akin to the questionnaire everyone got in high school about drugs….

        Q: Have you taken any hallucinogens in the last month?

        A: Oh yeah. LSD on my cereal. Peyote in my coffee. Every damn day.

  16. “He has no fear, he could not care less about censoring himself, and the press does not intimidate him.”

    The same is true of my 16 year old nephew. I don’t want him to be President either.

    1. Me either. The problem is that we have gotten to the point where the public hates and distrusts the media so much that they will support anyone if doing so allows them to side against the media. That is pretty scary when you think about it.

    2. Your 16 year old would crap his pants if the media credibly threatened to do something that would make girls not like him.

      1. Meh, give him a couple more years to go to college, express some perfectly normal, healthy interest in some girl he meets there, and be labeled as a rapist. That seems much scarier than anything printed in a newspaper.

      2. This. I remember how outraged 16 yo Paulbotto was about the existence of boy bands because I genuinely felt they were making it impossible for “average” guys to get girlfriends…

  17. [The] press [is] a very powerful force in America; given special privilege by the Founding Fathers

    Of FFS… No they weren’t. I knew Bill O’Reilly was a moron, but Jesus titty fucking Christ.

    “Freedom of the press” was intended to secure the rights of everyone to use mass communication technology to make their voices heard, not to grant special priveleges to a select few. Figures O’Reilly wouldn’t know the difference between natural rights and special priveleges. What a fucktard.

    1. No shit. The “press” didn’t get anything. The people got the right to say whatever they wanted. God I hate O’Reilly. He is such an arrogant asshole.

      1. “God I hate O’Reilly. He is such an arrogant asshole.”
        I remember before I ever heard Bill O’Reilly I assumed I would like him because liberals hate him, then I heard the interview of him with Marilyn Manson while at a friend’s house, without seeing it or knowing who either person was and I thought: “who is this obnoxious dick picking on this nice, reasonable-sounding person?”. I was pretty amused when I found out who it was. Still hate liberals though.

        1. I think his Barney Frank takedown was pretty good.

        2. I’ve seen that interview. O’Reilly seemed almost shocked to realize that Manson comes across as intelligent, rational and well-spoken. For a guy who rails about the press unfairly portraying conservatives as rabid raving idiots, he fails to imagine the same could have happened to a controversial figure like Manson.

          1. I admit I was surprised, but I was also fairly young and it only took me a second or two to get over it and then I just thought it was funny. Someone O’Reilly’s age should know better.

            1. I’m also pretty good at recognizing when my biases are unfounded after they are contradicted by reality. My teens and 20s were full of such moments. O’Reilly, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have an objective bone in his body.

              1. I was a bit surprised to see him treat Cheech and Chong respectfully when he interviewed them but generally I only watch his show to see Stossel and Watters.

        3. The stupid fucker wrote a book called “Killing Jesus”. If there is topic that has received more attention from more smart people for a longer time than the life and death of Jesus I am not aware of it. Yet, O”Reilly is so arrogant he thinks he has something to add even though he is no way a scholar of the subject. What a jackass.

    2. OTOH, he says “could not care less”, so this post raised my opinion of him.

  18. Many segments of the press were treating Obamacare-related comments from the out-of-work Palin more seriously than those by the sitting president as recently as 2011.

    Which Obamacare-related comments of the sitting president would you recommend we take seriously? I know you don’t like Palin, but WTF?

    1. Which of her comments were being taken “seriously”, rather than being reported for purposes of juicing hits/ratings and mocking her and her knuckle-dragging supporters?

      1. And which of her comments were not true? The ones I can remember, death panels and people losing their coverage, have all proven to be exactly correct.

        Why is it that she is the dumb one but the rest of the media who spent years assuring us Obamacare was fabulous are the smart ones?

        1. Why is it that she is the dumb one…?

          Because she stammered when asked what newspapers she reads. What else is there to know?

          1. And she thinks she can see Moscow from her back porch. She literally said that.

            She does have an abrasive voice though.

            1. She didn’t say Moscow. She said Russia, which was true.

              1. I assume you are being sarcastic and know she didn’t actually say that.

                1. Yes, it’s sarcasm. I’m still amazed so many people actually think she said that. It’s like if people thought that Clinton actually told Monica “Suck my dick. There’s a future in it.”

                  1. It was really “suck my dick, there’s a penny in it.”

              2. Actually, Tina Fey said that when doing her Palin shtick.

              3. Fay said that. Palin said “you can see Russia from parts of Alaska.”
                Come on guys.

          2. That and someone impersonating her once said “I can see Russia from my house” and many people are too stupid to understand the difference between an impersonation and the real person.

      2. THIS. I remember a lot of sneering about her “death panels” comment and how stupid she and her supporters were but not much else.

  19. The Press is the entity most responsible for the poor choices we have made, after the voters themselves. The voters who do not have all day to research and analyse issues have to depend on the professionals in the press. Those professionals have proven over and over to be lazy, biased, foolish, and incompetent to a staggering degree. They deserve more criticism from more places. They do not deserve to have people giving them cover by dismissing their critics, who are generally more right than not, and at the least a badly needed balance.

    Reason writers should strive more to be instructive and correct, rather than trying so hard to prove their independence and superior intellect. It’s dumb to accept the press we have now, and it’s irresponsible to give it cover. Call them out until they do their job.

  20. America is right to treat the media, the political establishment, and the Republican Party with escalating disdain.

    But not the Democratic Party Matt? Are they the good guys here? Just innocent bystanders and victims of the big meanie “establishment” whoever they are, the media and the Republicans?

    I am curious how exactly they escaped being included in that sentence.

    1. This post is about Donald Trump, who is running for office as a Republican.

      1. Doesn’t matter. John gets all pissy when the articles don’t talk about who he wants them to talk about. I really think he needs to apply for the job of editor. He’d set it right.

        1. I don’t he’s wrong about this though. Matt should have said “America is right to treat the media, the political establishment, and the Democrat and Republican Party with escalating disdain.”

          1. The Bus isn’t big enough, apparently

          2. Thank you Tman. That is what he should have said. It is funny to watch the lengths people will go on here to cover up any evidence that the Reason writers might be more left than right.

            1. It is funny to watch the lengths people will go on here to cover up any evidence that the Reason writers might be more left than right.

              That’s some serious trolling there, John. And who really cares except conservatards like you?

              1. You do apparently. And I am not the one who tried to pretend the sentence didn’t mean what it says.

          3. Why?

            Should he also have included the Greens, to make sure we know he’s not a damn eco-commie?

            1. Because there are only two major parties.

      2. Okay. Then why does he mention “the political establishment”? And isn’t the overall point of the post that the public doesn’t like government or trust politicians and the media to tell the truth?

        Are not the Democrats part of all that? Does the public like them and just dislike the Republicans and media? If so, that would seem to be relevant to his point.

        1. I know you’re a Team Red trufan John, but you need to bear in mind the Standard libertarian Disclaimer that criticism of one team does not imply an endorsement of the other.

          1. I am unaware of any disclaimer that says words don’t mean what they say. The sentence speaks for itself. If you think it says something different, then explain why. Yelling Team Red doesn’t really ad to the conversation.

            You tell me what that sentence is supposed to mean other than the democratic party has nothing to do with the problem of the public disliking government, the establishment, the media and the Republican Party.

            I would like to know Hugh. Are you capable of doing anything but yelling TEAM?

            1. That sentence lists three things that Matt believes the public are right to treat with disdain. That is the literal reading of that sentence.

              It doesn’t mention police brutality, Islamic terrorists, the Democratic Party, or the Boston Red Sox, but presumably Matt believes all of those things are also worthy of disdain. It’s not an exhaustive list, but rather a narrow one tailored to the topic of this blog post, which is a Republican political candidate and his conservative pundit apologist.

              Not every statement conceals a secret attack on your beloved institutions or on you personally. You would probably be a lot happier if you weren’t so perpetually aggrieved.

              1. That sentence lists three things that Matt believes the public are right to treat with disdain. That is the literal reading of that sentence.

                Yes. And that leaves the question, do the Democrats have anything to do with the public’s dislike of the media and the establishment? If so, why not list them as well?

                And yes it was a mistake on Welch’s part. Reason needs an actual editor instead of a guy in a jacket pretending to be one. gf

                Did he mean it? I don’t know. I can’t read his mind. But it is fun to call him out for it and watch you people jump through your asses and pretend it doesn’t mean what it says.
                i
                I am not aggrieved about anything. Since when it pointing out the meaning of words and an obvious statement of bias or an obvious mistake make you aggrieved? If anyone is aggrieved it is people like you who seem to have a religious confidence that no reason writer ever could be anything but totally objective.

            2. You tell me what that sentence is supposed to mean other than the democratic party has nothing to do with the problem of the public disliking government, the establishment, the media and the Republican Party.

              Maybe the sentence didn’t mention the Democrat Party because the topic was Frump and FOX News’ pet leprechaun, neither of whom belong to that party.

              If the topic was Shrillary and MSLSD’s pet mad cow, would you be flipping out if they neglected to mention the Republicans?

              Context, dude. Context.

    2. But not the Democratic Party Matt?

      I think he covered that when he said media and political establishment.

      1. Okay. But why doesn’t the establishment include the Republicans?

        1. Because the establishment is overwhelmingly Democrat. You’re stooping to Bo-level pedantry here. Please quit while you’re behind, stop digging, or whatever you want to call it. It’s embarrassing to watch.

    3. I read that as the Democrats being included in the “political establishment”.

      Shrike might just as well wonder why the Republicans weren’t also included in the “political establishment”–since the political establishment is being portrayed as the bad guys here.

      1. If the Political establishment includes the Democratic Party, why does it not also include the Republican Party? If it does, then why mention the Republican Party again? Isn’t that redundant?

        You are just rewriting his sentence to make it mean something it taken at face value clearly doesn’t. Am I a just an evil partisan for reading the words as they are written?

        1. You and Bo should go have a drink. You’ve got a lot in common. Like refusing to admit when something obvious is implied.

          1. Why is my question so unreasonable? If the political establishment includes the Democrats, then doesn’t it also include the Republicans? And if so, then why mention the Republican Party later?

            Clearly, whatever Matt considers to be the political establishment is something different than the two parties. Otherwise, he would not have added in the Republican Party to the sentence, since there would have been no need to.

            So I will ask again, is the Democratic Party just bystanders in all of this?

            You tell me where my logic is wrong.

            1. Because everyone just knows the Dems are the good people.

            2. So I will ask again, is the Democratic Party just bystanders in all of this?

              In this context, I would say yes. This article had nothing to do with Democrat politicians. Whatever. I’m not here to defend Matt, and I really don’t care. It is obviously important to you, though I can’t conceive of why.

              1. I don’t see how the Democratic Party can be bystanders in the public’s increased dislike for the establishment and the media. If Matt thinks so, I would be curious to hear why.

        2. You are just rewriting his sentence to make it mean something it taken at face value clearly doesn’t.

          Hey if SCOTUS can do it…

          1. Penaltax !

  21. “This passage, I think, explains a lot about modern conservatism, about Trump’s poll numbers (in both directions: leading the pack and drawing the highest unfavorables), and about how anti-media sentiment overrides so many other values, even/especially among the conservative media establishment itself.”

    1) If 24% of Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump, that means 76% of Republican primary voters know everything they need to know about Donald Trump–and they reject him.

    2) Anti-media sentiment doesn’t drive the news anywhere near as much as anti-cultural conservative sentiment drives the news.

    Perfect example is the latest push against the Confederate flag. They are so obsessed with rooting out racism, that they’ll turn a mass shooting–not into a fight against Second Amendment rights but into a fight against the Confederate flag?

    It’s about the baby boomers. They’re still trying to stick it to Nixon, Agnew, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan.

    1. Alot of truth in that. Alot of old people (yeah I said it) still think it’s 1968 and they are fighting the man along side Abby and Bobby. You can’t be all anti-establishment, and be collecting your SS check.

    2. “they’ll turn a mass shooting–not into a fight against Second Amendment rights but into a fight against the Confederate flag?”

      To be fair, they tried the gun-control angle but it didn’t work.

      But they *had* to exploit the tragedy to boost their saggy poll numbers.

      The killer hadn’t said anything about video games. He wasn’t in the Tea Party. But he *did* have a Confederate battle flag. So by default, that’s what they went with.

      Or would you simply have had them issue condolences, attend the funeral, and then move on in an appropriately somber mood without doing anything exploitative?

  22. Slightly OT:

    But where have they gone? Hilarious moment pet cat Milo wakes from anaesthetic after routine op to get neutered

    Six-month-old pet cat woke to discover he had been neutered
    Let out a huge screech that appeared to show his dissatisfaction
    Owners say he checked for the next hour after his discovery
    Pets are neutered at an early age to prevent them having unwanted litters

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-snip.html

  23. “…given special privilege by the Founding Fathers,…”

    Mr. O’Reilly seems a bit confused regarding the source of humanities’ liberties.

    1. It’s O’Reilly. He also believes that rights come with responsibility. Privilege comes with responsibility. Not rights.

  24. who cares about Trump. One obvious terrorist GOP candidate has been spotted with a woodchipper.

  25. I wonder what the ratio is of stupid things said by Hillary divided by the stupid things said by Trump is?

    Same thing for ratio of Bernie Sanders divided by Trump.

    I doubt that it’s less than 1 to 1 for either one of them.

    But don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to cover anything stupid said by Bernie or Hillary in the same way they focus on Trump.

    Democrats and liberals always get a pass on such things.

    Exhibit A: Joe Biden

  26. I can’t be the only one who doesn’t give a single, solitary shit about any of this, can I?

    1. When Trump wins a primary or declares a third party run, I will start to care. Until then, this is just a pissing match between a bunch of people I hate, Trump and the Media.

      1. But are the Democrats included in “people I hate” ?

        I kid, I kid !! I make joke.

        1. I hate them too. I am not sure Matt does though.

    2. You keep saying that

      1. Well, I don’t understand the massive amount of attention given to Trump, as well as the massive amount of attention given to the attention given to Trump. I can’t believe all things Trump get more air time than 4 Marines attacked on U.S. soil. What am I missing here?

        1. “What am I missing here?”

          I think you underestimate reactionary irrationality.

        2. “I don’t understand the massive amount of attention given to Trump”

          see below, re: Matt’s bemoaning the “populists” feeding on the breadcrumbs he throws out

          I believe the “massive attention” has something to do with the current media-cycle M.O.

          whatever the fuck is trending on twitter gets amped-up and recycled to the point that it creates a headache-inducing sugar-rush of stupid commentary… then when the public has finally had enough, they transition to mocking the people who consumed their swill. the Trumpathon 2015 is just about near the finish line, from what i can tell.

        3. What am I missing here?

          Attacking Trump advances the Narrative.

          Covering the killing of 5 (yeah, the Navy guy died) servicemen by a radicalized Muslim does not advance the Narrative.

    3. I have to admit to some guilty pleasure here for two reasons.

      1. Trump is trolling people that I can’t stand( most of the media, Graham, McCain etc.)

      2. He has zero chance of actually winning. If you don’t believe me, wait until the attack ads come out with soundbites of Trump supporting single payer healthcare.

      1. I’m starting to seriously consider Trump as Perot 2.0. With a third-party independent run in his future.

        One that will end with a Clinton in the White House, even.

  27. “Conservatives are right that the media leans overwhelmingly left, and that it portrays them unfairly, sometimes with barely concealed loathing. And journalists are correct to point out that the temporal figureheads of the populist, anti-media right?Donald Trump today, Herman Cain yesterday, Sarah Palin the day before that?say and believe and occasionally do a lot of seriously goofy things.”

    I think you’ve got it backwards – these guys aren’t any kind of temporal figureheads until the media goes after them, then they get sympathy from people who know the media is full of it.

    For instance, I didn’t care much about Palin one way or the other until I noticed the purple-faced, spittle-flecked rage of her enemies. Even at Reason, she got denounced for getting one of her relatives, a misbehaving cop, fired. But we all know that if she’d covered up for the relative, she would *also* have been denounced (rightly this time).

    Trump is a special case because he’s already a celebrity and the media would have covered him in any case, regardless of his politics.

    As for Cain, I don’t know if he was Presidential material (for example, he never served as a community organizer and he never married a President), but there was a “how dare this black man leave the Democratic plantation” tone to some of the coverage unless I very much miss my guess.

    Applauding people like Palin and Cain is a way to annoy the media, and that’s a *strong* temptation.

    1. Seriously, what was the problem with Cain (other than the unfortunate Biblical name)? I mean, sure he never paid his dues to the Chicago political machine, he didn’t write two books about himself, he never got a huge salary for talking about poverty, or do any of the things Democrats do to establish themselves as Serious Candidates, but he *did* run a business, which is one more business than other candidates ran.

      1. So basically, I’m coming up short trying to think how a Palin or Cain administration would somehow have been worse than the Bill Clinton, GW Bush or Obama administration. Why are the foregoing clowns real contenders, while Palin and Cain are jokes?

        1. “‘Cain administration””

          Abelist

          1. Your pun offering was accepted.

  28. “the populist, anti-media right…say and believe and occasionally do a lot of seriously goofy things”

    Now back to the serious business of writing two dozen articles about Donald Trump in one week.

    1. and then appearing on television to talk about the articles about the person

      1. and then writing articles about the media’s obsession

        1. and then writing articles about “whatever happened to the Donald Trump fad?” in a few weeks

          1. Clearly I must have been distracted by the latest Millennial Polls to have missed this pattern.

            1. Well, that can happen when you are hiding under your bed from Rape Culture.

    2. Indeed.

      Compare that to the relatively few written about Bernie’s brand of idiocy.

      1. Bernie has policy positions, and that is what you’re referring to. Fair enough, but the comparisons to Trump are just the sort of false equivalence affirmative action that keeps Republicans from the dust-heap of history where they belong.

        1. “policy positions”

          “Free Stuff!! Less Deodorant!”

          tell us more about Bernie’s policies, Tony.

          What would he do with Capital Gains taxes, for instance, and what economic miracle would it bring about?

          1. “Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

            I don’t think he ever promised a miracle. That’s what the “tax cuts = jobs” crowd does.

            1. You missed the part about the economic good that raising capital gains (and thereby cutting investment by equal proportions) would actually produce.

              Unless you’re just arguing that “higher taxes” are better by definition?

              1. According to him, the benefits are increased revenue and basic fairness.

                1. “according to him”

                  You feel incapable of defending his ideas, Tony?

                2. We get that the government benefits from having more money. The question is, does the country benefit from the government having more money?

                  As to “fairness”, that’s an empty box if I ever saw one. What do you think it means?

                  1. Taxing making money at least as much as earning money seems pretty straightforward, with respect to fairness, to me.

                    1. Making money IS earning money.

                    2. “Taxing making invested money at least as much as earned money”

                      we knew you were economically illiterate tony, but you didn’t need to be so direct about it.

                      Investment income is taxed lower than wages specifically to incentivize capital investment.

                      Or do you not think capital investment is necessary to economic growth? I can’t ever fathom the depth of your ignorance, so you’re going to have to continue to demonstrate for me.

            2. IOW, why is “raising”* $500 billion …

              (*which is just a word for ‘removing it from the economy’)

              …an economically worthwhile goal? Is it the F-35 bill you’re trying to pay? Or the chinese debt collector?

              1. I am shocked you are unable to articulate any actual justification for “more revenue”. Shocked.

                1. I will jump in and help Tony… The word he’s missing is “investment.” The $500B raised by Bernie with these tax increases would be “invested” by him and his cronies in all sorts of wholesome and worthwhile endeavors. You know, like high-speed rail, carbon offsets, Michelle-approved school breakfasts and suppers to augment school lunches, and a newly designed War on Rape Culture with Mattress Girl hired as Secretary of Rape. These are all GOOD kinds of investment. When a private individual makes an investment, it is NOT GOOD and should be discouraged through punitive taxes. Otherwise, private investment might lead to ugly consequences, like entrepreneurs getting funny ideas about starting new businesses or even (God Forbid!) launching new deodorants!

                  How can we be sure private investment is bad, while public spending…oops, Investment is good? Well, private individuals tend to dump investments that don’t perform well. Government investment knows it’s good intentions, feelz, and bureaucratic jobs that matter. Actual performance or return on investment is meaningless — and you’re wrong to focus on that.

            3. “Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work…..”

              Then either get rid of the corporate income tax or the individual tax on investment income.

              The stockholder is taxed twice on his investment income while the worker is only taxed once on his wages.

              Then when everything is only taxed once, we can tax it all at the same tax rate.

        2. I see you still haven’t managed to find that second brain cell yet.

        3. Bernie has national socialist policy positions, and that is what you’re referring to.

          Fixed it for you.

          but the comparisons to Trump are just the sort of false equivalence affirmative action that keeps Republicans from the dust-heap of history where they belong.

          Except that they’re both populist demagogues that are going against the traditional tactics of their parties and appealing to the most base of human instincts through a combination of emotional appeals and conspiracy theories of a demonized ‘other’ made up of elites (for Trump it’s a conspiracy of interests letting immigrants in, for Bernie it’s a conspiracy of interests suppressing the people) and non-white populations (Trump’s immigration idiocy, Bernie’s protectionist damnation of cheap foreign labour and utter silence on trade with white, developed countries). It’s only a ‘false equivalence’ if you’re some utterly blind partisan hack.

          As usual you fail to see the bigger picture. If Trump signals that the Republicans belong in the dust-heap of history, Bernie justifies it for the Democrats just as much.

          1. Democrats are for the most part serious people. Republicans are for the most part not. I didn’t make it that way, I don’t like it that way, it just is. Bernie Sanders is a “populist” but he’s just trying to get us to where the rest of the civilized world is. We can’t be there because of Republicans and the factless paranoid horseshit they distract everyone with as they enact kleptocratic policies. I will maintain the position that the parties are not equal and opposite, or equal and the same, until the day that changes. Not all of us live in the rightwing media propaganda bubble. Not all of us think Bernie Sanders is like a Nazi, and that that is a serious thought.

            1. Free Stuff is very serious, tony

              1. On this issue he is arguing against giving free stuff to people who didn’t earn it.

                1. “Not taking” is not giving, Tony.

                  You also dodged above any rationale why its imperative Govt have $500bn of ‘other people’s money’ ASAP

                  Watching you dig a hole and then trying to not fall into it is particularly funny.

                  1. You and Bernie aren’t going to agree that in order to fix the deficit, which I presume you consider a problem, we have to eliminate most of modern civilization rather than raise more revenue. Agree to disagree.

                    If you can’t get to a place where you appreciate that taxing one person 5% and another person 10% arbitrarily is tantamount to giving the first person extra money, then you’re just a shill for plutocrats and that’s all there is to it. Taxes pay for stuff. The first person is getting a discount on that stuff. You people are not taken seriously on economics because you are so brazenly stupid about everything.

                    1. You’re so persuasive.

                    2. Tony, idiot shrill for statist plutocrats (no Tony, your intentions don’t matter), screams about how everyone else is a shrill for plutocrats.

                    3. “You people are not taken seriously on economics because you are so brazenly stupid about everything.””

                      Said the person so brazenly stupid he was unable to justify why a half trillion dollars in new taxes on capital investments are de-facto a good thing, and “fair”,

                    4. I love how you’re so incredibly stupid that you think Capital Gains only affects “Plutocrats”

                      Because its not like the 99% have 401ks, IRAs, or insurance policies. Or borrow money to buy houses.

                      No, only scrooge mcducks employ financial services. And we should totally fuck over the entire population if it means we can mildly irritate a few billionaires. That’s how fucking brilliant you are, Tony. And not only are you so stupid that you don’t even understand your own argument, you’re *smug* about it to boot. bravo.

                    5. “If you can’t get to a place where you appreciate that taxing one person 5% and another person 10% arbitrarily is tantamount to giving the first person extra money…”

                      So you are saying that if I were to go around mugging people, but made it a point to leave a portion of their cash in their wallets before handing the wallets back, it would actually be tantamount to giving these people money rather than theft?

                      To me, taking money someone else has earned by threat of force is theft, plain and simple. If I leave a little of the loot behind doesn’t make it any less of a crime.

                      It’s as if you believe that ALL money rightfully belongs to the government, and having the government allow us peons to keep a portion of it is a great example of their largesse and noblesse oblige.

                      Maybe the Nazi comparisons for your BLUE TEAM and their equally fascist but differently dressed sidekicks the RED TEAM are not all that apt. They are more like feudal aristocrats and we are the landless serfs who owe our lives and labor to them.

                2. How are gains from investment not earned?

                  1. It is if you choose to include it in the definition of earning. See, I’m contrasting earning via labor with earning, or making, via capital. The question is not what words you use, it’s why one form of income should be taxed less than the other.

                    1. “it’s why one form of income should be taxed less than the other.”

                      as already explained to you – the differential exists for a reason. To incentivize investment. Which you ignored because you’re an idiot and have no reply.

                      or would you prefer everyone’s pensions were simply tied to treasury rates, and investment return was so poor that everyone has to work until they die? EQUALITY, finally!

                    2. AND………….
                      Marx!

                    3. THat was meant for Tony’s comment regarding the labor theory of value (even though he hasn’t a clue that is what he is arguing for)

            2. Democrats are for the most part serious people. Republicans are for the most part not.

              See, when I speak of utterly blind partisan hack, this is a good example. I expect you to be unable to even attempt to be objective about your tribe, but the amount of cognitive dissonance that goes into your ‘us vs. them’ complex must be extraordinary.

              We can’t be there because of Republicans and the factless paranoid horseshit they distract everyone with as they enact kleptocratic policies.

              Delusional enough to ignore Democratic kleptocracy it seems, how predictable.

              he’s just trying to get us to where the rest of the civilized world is.

              Basic logical failure. An argumentum ad populum means nothing.

              1. Not all of us think Bernie Sanders is like a Nazi, and that that is a serious thought.

                Who said Nazi? I’m talking about the actual ideological tenets of national socialism, which is what Bernie excels at. Populist appeals to widespread social and economic programs for ‘nationals'(which need not necessarily be based on race) while expressing a fanatical demonization of a foreign ‘other’ and their supposed robbery of the nationals. Textbook national socialism. I mean, you are aware that national socialist is more than just screaming ‘NAZI’ and has an actual ideological founding right? Nazi’s are just an example along with Kemalism, Peronism, etc.

                And since I know you love credentials, I received my degree in political science from the one of the top ranked universities in North America. Where did you go to learn basic political ideological definitions?

            3. Where you’re wrong is that candidates like Christie and Rubio are as much like Nazis as Bernie is. While they may not want to limit me to only buying state-approved Kraft durch Freude brand deodorant, they are all for ramping up the Gestapo to spy on me and send me off to a Wesley Clark-designed Buchenwald camp if I’m deemed insufficiently patriotic or if like consuming certain non-approved plants. If you don’t get why both Teams are both stupid and terrifying at this point, you need to wake up.

              1. People need to focus less on the Nazis when someone mentions national socialism and focus on the actual historical trend and behaviour of national socialist regimes. Kemalism is a great place to start.

                This is not meant to be a Godwin, this is not saying that Bernie is going to march Jews into concentration camps. This is saying that national socialism has actual ideological tenets and political tactics that Bernie excels at. If you’re sensitive to the use of the term, then maybe you should question your support.

      2. Bernie Sanders is doing God’s work.

        By functioning as a barnacle on the hull on the Battleship Hillary

        We must remain silent, lest we interrupt his feeble utility

        Trump, by contrast, produces clicks, delicious clicks, and TV appearances.

        1. Hillary is a battleship?

          She looks more like a garbage scow to me.

          1. No, she should be hauled away AS garbage

    3. I think my biggest problem with Reason’s ‘corporate culture’ is that they pretend to consistently be above the petty interactions of the ‘media’ they decry while engaging in the exact same damn behaviour. It’s like when CNN tries to pretend that it’s ‘objective’. No, fuck you, I know you’re going to be subjective, and I know Reason is going to pour on the Trump articles and political clickbait, stop insulting my intelligence.

      1. Trump is just the new Palin. Reason spent years claiming Palin was not a serious person and should be ignored while writing more about her than any other politician other than Obama.

    4. Gilmore,

      Don’t you understand, the media, the establishment and the evil Republicans are doing nothing but talking about Trump at the expense of serious issues.and it is horrible.

      Now let me get back to writing my 15th Article about Trump in the last two weeks. I have got a TV appearance to talk about Trump tonight and don’t have much time.

      signed/
      Matt Welch

      And have I mentioned I once wrote a book about John McCain?

  29. Trump is running against two entities with very low poll numbers: the media, and Congress. If he had any coherent thoughts it would be even more interesting.

    Also, how many of you laughed when you saw that Trump released Graham’s number? I am laughing typing this. What a dick.

  30. Despite all the hating on John, I think he’s right. A majority of the articles on Reason either smack of lefty bias, or are blatantly left and are not even libertarian in philosophy (e.g. Dalmias recent article on privatizing marriage). Especially recently, more and more articles are more frequently leaning left.

    Empirical evidence outweighs the John hating/name calling/ad hominem attacks that claim otherwise.

    1. They only resort to ad homnem when they are wrong. Pointing out facts that don’t fit the narrative never makes you any friends.

      And I don’t think Reason is all bad. But it i snot all good either. The problem is every time it is bad it is always bad left. It is never bad right. They will publish appalling things like the Dalmia article praising government marriage or Richman calling the American Sniper guy Adam Lanza but never once does any writer ever go off the reservation. to the Right. I understand there is diversity of opinion even among Libertarians. But the “diversity” and the iconoclasm only go Left. In Reason land the only acceptable way to deviate from Libertarian dogma is to do it by embracing a position on the Left never the Right. And they should be called for that.

      1. How is it even possible to be this delusional?

        What do you want? On economic policy your complaint doesn’t have a leg to stand on. That’s obvious. On social policy, libertarians align with liberals more than conservatives. Did you expect something else?

        Do you want more Reason articles praising cops or advocating Christianity-based governance? I’m pretty sure I read a bunch of “abolish marriage” articles before Dalmia’s showed up, and her argument was still couched in small-government terms (and perhaps bowing to the reality that “abolish marriage” arguments were all thinly-veiled antigay bullshit).

        Do you conservatives ever do anything but whine?

        1. Go fuck yourself Tony. Take your idiocy elsewhere. You are too stupid to even properly troll a thread.

          1. They only resort to ad homnem when they are wrong.

            1. No Tony. You are the exception. Everyone embraces that with you because you deserve it and you are too hateful and stupid to be handled in any other way.

              You are special Tony.

              1. The difference between you and me is I don’t care if I’m respected by the morons on these comments boards. It’s why I’m so cheerful and you’re so pissy all the time.

                1. No the difference between you and me Tony is actually criticize Republicans and most importantly, I post on here on subjects that have nothing to do with partisan politics. You in contrast never call out the Dems and never post on any thread that doesn’t involve you coming to the defense of Team Red. Never once are you seen on a dead puppy thread or a movie thread or a history thread or a pop culture thread or a science thread, unless it is shill for global warming. Never.

                  That is why you are a partisan troll and everyone sees it. You are an exceptionally stupid troll since if you were smart you would post on here sometimes when doing so didn’t involve posing canned Democrat talking points. But you never do because you are so sad that you have no opinions about anything that are not Democratic talking points.

                  1. I’ve never made a secret of my partisanship. With respect to political action, I consider being a registered Democrat the most rational course for an American, and I have no emotional need to pretend otherwise like you with your obvious partisanship. And I only rarely post on articles where I agree with everyone. I don’t get much from that, but I do find the endless circle jerking libertarians engage in fascinating. It’s almost like they’re here to reinforce beliefs that are empirically shaky.

                    1. People don’t always agree on those threads tony. You have never once made a post that didn’t involve defending a Democrat. Never once. It is all you do,. And you never deviate from the party talking points.

                      If nothing else Tony, you should try harder and stop selling yourself short and letting the party think for you.

                    2. Well, the Democratic party is getting increasingly closer to my own politics. I have a complicated theory about ideological sorting in this country and that it may be rational that people in particular camps have few disagreements with those camps’ platforms. It has to do with one camp valuing rationality and the other rejecting it. Furthermore, party leaders are likely to be more expert than I am at pragmatic politics, so as long as they win and support the right policies, I don’t complain much. I can dig up disagreements here and there, but I’m not interested in doing so for the sake of affirming the fallacious claim that being intellectually serious means disagreeing with X a certain percentage of the time. Or that because I like a politicians’ tits that I should throw my brain in the dumpster and make a fool of myself by ceaselessly defending utter morons like Sarah Palin.

                    3. And I only rarely post on articles where I agree with everyone.

                      Which articles would those be? I mean, here at Reason, not at Derp Weekly, Mother Derp, or The Derp.

                    4. Tony, pretty much everything you post could be copy/pasted with only the actors replaced. For example:

                      I’ve never made a secret of my partisanship. With respect to political action, I consider being a registered Democrat Republican the most rational course for an American, and I have no emotional need to pretend otherwise like you with your obvious partisanship. And I only rarely post on articles where I agree with everyone. I don’t get much from that, but I do find the endless circle jerking libertarians progressives engage in fascinating. It’s almost like they’re here to reinforce beliefs that are empirically shaky.

        2. We know Tony. Everyone but liberals are evil. You are a hateful idiot. We know that. You don’t have to prove it every single day post after post. Your hateful retard status is secure.

          1. John, just walk away. Exerting the energy to refute Tony’s stupidity is too much for anyone to do on a regular basis, and if you just call him names or make references to his previous stupidity, you give the rather large lurker base around here the impression you can’t refute him. Regulars know why you aren’t engaging with Tony as if he was a serious commenter but the newbs don’t.

        3. Do you conservatives ever do anything but whine?

          This is hilarious coming from the guy who does nothing here but whine about how evil and stupid we apparently are. Seriously, John vs. Tony fights are the best, you don’t care who wins and everyone lacks self-awareness.

    2. Reason has been going steadily downhill for a few years now, and I’m glad more and more people are finally starting to notice. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could possibly NOT notice.

      There are still a couple of true gems who work here; Stossel and Judge Napolitano in particular stand out head and shoulders above the rest. But the number of standard left-liberals who pretend they’re libertarian in order to get a paycheck here is indeed distressing.

      1. Or at least try to hire a standard right conservative pretending to try and balance it out.

        There are right wing positions that can be held for Libertarian reasons. Being anti Abortion is probably the best example of that. But you will never see Reason publish a full on pro life article. Instead you will get ENB giving you canned pro choice talking points pretending that Planned Parenthood selling body parts from aborted fetuses is just no big deal.

        1. pro choice talking points pretending that Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses is just no big deal.

          In that tape, the PP honcho openly admits that their costs for harvesting rather than discarding the parts is practically nil, and she then goes on to try to negotiate the highest price she can.

          Current law (like it or not) is that PP can only get their costs back.

          Reason actually has a good record that there should be an open market in transplant parts. Funny how I don’t really recall that being part of their coverage of the aborted fetus part story (haven’t looked; possible she name-checked it).

          1. Sure. But I don’t think Reason is down with selling body parts from people who don’t consent.

            And their coverage of the story has consisted of ENB pretending this is no big deal and no laws were violated.

            1. Sure. But I don’t think Reason is down with selling body parts from people who don’t consent.

              Nobody is. And it doesn;t happen.

              And their coverage of the story has consisted of ENB pretending this is no big deal and no laws were violated.

              Never confuse yourself with facts and evidence. Or do you object to “innocent until proven guilty?”

              We know for an absolute fact that the video was shot nearly an entire year before it was released (50 weeks). So why did they intentionally sit on what they claim, were thousands of federal crimes for an entire year? And if this creates more abortions, how many preventable baby deaths did they knowingly allow since last July?”

              How’d you miss the BLATANT lie about partial-birth abortions??????

              None of this is rocket science So who’s “pretending” here?

          2. In that tape, the PP honcho openly admits that their costs for harvesting rather than discarding the parts is practically nil, and she then goes on to try to negotiate the highest price she can.

            Seriously untrue.

            Current law (like it or not) is that PP can only get their costs back.

            Reality, like it or not, cannot apply that standard to each transaction, only the overall total (per clinic)

            “Okay, I confess that Planned Parenthood does not profit from organs and tissues.
            But we found over 100 examples where they made a profit on individual transactions”

            Umm, even 5th grade math can see they must LOSE money on individual transactions. But what are facts?

            Maybe need a high school IQ to comprehend that the costs — the heaviest being potentially storage — are unknown until AFTER THE SHIPMENT. We all understand, right?, that these organs and tissues are not stored in a fridge or cooler? Oh, not everyone grasps that?

        2. That would do the most good. Most of the current main writers agree with and feed off each other. They take a small step towards the left, get no push back from the people they actually care about (the other reason writers) and then normalize their step to the left as their new center. If they had someone doing the exact opposite they would be forced to recalibrate their sense of center further to the right, and thus they’d be less likely to thoughtlessly move to the left.

          This of course would do nothing against the normalization of more and more statist positions. We’d need a true blue anarchists to help calibrate that center, and I can’t ever see the current Reason being willing to give those guys a platform (I don’t agree with them, but that doesn’t mean their views aren’t valuable).

        3. Being anti Abortion is probably the best example of that.

          Only if — like Reagan — one speaks strongly pro-life — only for one’s self or as persuasion — instead of trying to impose one’s values by force of law.

          The 5th, 14th and 9th amendments clearly protect the woman’s right to liberty.
          Extremists on BOTH sides shamefullydeny there are TWO sets of individual rights here.

    1. Thank the gods for that! This thread fucking wore me out!

  31. Yes, Fox, Limbaugh, et al arose in part to counter the tribal “media”
    Now the right has its own batshit-crazy tribe. Americans, to be fully informed, must now read both left and right — since both bury their own tribe’s nonstop[ wackiness — then also know how to research the truth (where possible). What are the odds?

    True independents are the loneliest people in America. Like a Streisand fan at a Klan rally.
    Or a Reagan/Golwater fan at a socon rally.

    1. Or Michael Hihn in a Reason thread 5 hours after it’s been abandoned babbling incoherently back and forth with the voices in his head.

      1. The dumbfuck is still reading it (snicker)

  32. “Conservatives are right that the media leans overwhelmingly left,…”

    Stop lying, FFS. What and how the media REPORTS and who owns the media is overwhelmingly center-right / right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.