NY Times does somewhat flattering article on Jeb Bush, describing him as something of a bookish technocrat, which is how the less whiny and mawkish of the liberal illuminati like to think of themselves - so obviously the Times has decided Jeb is running, is a threat to Hillary and must be smeared into oblivion, made primary toxic - they got Christie with 'bridgegate' since electable straight shooter was Christie's thing and the trumped up scandal seems to have deep sixed that - and now, much as they did with Romney, they're gonna make Jeb unpalatable to the conservative base by stigmatizing his refined qualities as strange and not to be trusted - and thus, again like Romney, even if Bush wins the nomination you hope you've stirred up enough distrust in the base that they just don't bother going out to vote. Having seen Obama exploit liberal media bias in this way you'd like to think conservatives have figured out countermeasures - but then one would like to think a lot of things which just don't turn out to be true.
The interesting wonder is will the Times et al be as unquestioningly in the tank for Hillary as they were for Dear Leader? They see where such blind faith got them with Obama - an utterly awful president - a sane and thoughtful person would take a step back and reevaluate - but these people aren't sane, are they - that ain't how ideological fervor works - blind faith is a virtue, not a flaw - and so I'd imagine most of the liberal elite still cling to their Obama delusions and resist contemplations on maybe having been wrong and misguided - to allow such pernicious thoughts could upend their entire belief system, and we can't have that - I mean, what's truth compared to guarding one's faith against doubt? Look at the Financial Times tearing apart of new liberal favorite Piketty's numbers and arguments - does anyone honestly think Krugman, shameless ideologue that he is, is now gonna take a step back and reevaluate his unquestioning adoration of that socialist dream work? No bloody way.
The interesting wonder is will the Times et al be as unquestioningly in the tank for Hillary as they were for Dear Leader? They see where such blind faith got them with Obama - an utterly awful president - a sane and thoughtful person would take a step back and reevaluate - but these people aren't sane, are they - that ain't how ideological fervor works - blind faith is a virtue, not a flaw - and so I'd imagine most of the liberal elite still cling to their Obama delusions and resist contemplations on maybe having been wrong and misguided - to allow such pernicious thoughts could upend their entire belief system, and we can't have that - I mean, what's truth compared to guarding one's faith against doubt? Look at the Financial Times tearing apart of new liberal favorite Piketty's numbers and arguments - does anyone honestly think Krugman, shameless ideologue that he is, is now gonna take a step back and reevaluate his unquestioning adoration of that socialist dream work? No bloody way.