More Jan. 6 creative writing at the New York Times
Here is an example of creative writing. from a New York Times political columnist -- in this case Jamelle Bouie:
"[T]here's no question that Donald Trump was determined to overturn the 2020 presidential election and end American constitutional government in order to stay in office." Alas, Bouie, in his August 4 column, makes the grievous mistake of citing Katie Benner, a Times colleague, as a source for the false claim that Mr. Trump threatened "American constitutional government in order to stay in office." Bouie could have made this fatal mistake only if he thought readers would not be reminded that Benner, at the end of July, referred to Trump voters as "enemies of the state" and a threat to national security.
Now there is the authoritarian mindset revealed to all: referring to people who opposed Biden as "enemies of the state."
We should not be surprised that Bouie then called "Jan. 6" an "insurrection." (As did Impeachment II, against President Trump, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, one of the members of the Pelosi panel against the Republican Party.) A definition of "insurrection" via Google is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Lots of shoving and pushing by several hundred people, in less time than it takes to play a Major League Baseball game, and in which the demonstrators are not armed — not even wielding fire extinguishers — is hardly "an insurrection." Otherwise, one might as well refer to the start of a marathon as "insurrection."
Bouie goes on to take to task House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy for naming Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan to the Pelosi panel against Republicans. Bouie suggests that Pelosi was right in vetoing the two Jims from her select panel, saying they are totally devoted to Donald J. Trump — as if every Democrat on the panel, indeed every Democrat in the House, plus at least two Republicans, is not totally devoted to Pelosi, particularly Rep. Raskin and the mendacious Adam Schiff (who most certainly is not to be confused with the "Adam Schiff" of NBC-TV's Law and Order).
At the end of his "false claim"–filled column, Bouie takes umbrage at attempts by conservatives to make sure that the 2024 presidential election is on the up-and-up, warning that the country "is barreling toward another crisis." By that, Bouie likely means that the left will sow discord and chaos if what his colleague Benner called "the enemies of the state" succeed in electing a Republican president in 2024. Expect, if the GOP regains the White House in three years, truly violent rioting in the cities that will mark real "insurrection," with demands of "impeach now" shouted by the nightly arsonists and looters.
Unless...Bouie mentioned the prediction of House Republican whip Steve Scalise that the Pelosi select committee would be partisan, and politicize the events at the Capitol the afternoon of "Jan. 6." A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll, reported by Breitbart, August 4, indicates that nearly 60% of voters agree with Mr. Scalise.
Fifty-eight percent of voters believe the Pelosi panel is biased towards Democrats, and Breibart also reported, significantly, that poll co-director Mark Penn told The Hill that people are more interested in probes of the urban riots of summer 2020, and the origins of COVID-19, than they are in a House investigation of "Jan. 6."
This poll result calls to mind the curtain line of one of Frank Capra's populist movies, Meet John Doe, which in present context would read:
"The people. Pelosi — try and lick that."
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.