Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Donald Trump's supporters create endless alibis for him, just as Bill Clinton's did for him. Before there was Donald Trump, there was another charismatic presidential candidate who led his party out of the White House wilderness. A political miracle worker all his own, he resurrected himself from the political grave so many times that one of his nicknames was "The Comeback Kid." He toppled a political empire, ended the opposing party's alleged vise grip on the White House, and had a temperament and personality that drove his political opponents nuts. He inspired such fanatical devotion (and gratitude for his key policy decisions) that men and women were willing to lie for him, sacrifice their principles for him, and in one notorious case even go to jail to protect him. He was the movement. The movement was him.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

At the end of the day, this piece is an indictment of Trump's enabling supporters.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 02:05 PM | Reply

At the end of the day that was a ridiculous bunch of bull ----.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Before there was Donald Trump, there was another charismatic presidential"

Donald is not charismatic. I can say that because I don't serve in his Cabinet.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2017-06-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Bill Clinton had a touch of larceny. Donald Trump is larcenous.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2017-06-14 02:18 PM | Reply

More false equivalencies, excuses for Trump, and finger pointing attempts at distraction.

Trump is one of a kind, fortunately.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 02:20 PM | Reply

At the end of the day that was a ridiculous bunch of bull ----.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

I'd be willing to be you didn't read it.

Donald is not charismatic. I can say that because I don't serve in his Cabinet.

#3 | POSTED BY ZED

Funny.

More false equivalencies, excuses for Trump, and finger pointing attempts at distraction...

#5 | POSTED BY CORKY

You obviously didn't read it either. What you described is not contained anywhere in the piece.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 02:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What I described, rather accurately, is the purpose of the piece.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 02:38 PM | Reply

What I described, rather accurately, is the purpose of the piece.
#7 | POSTED BY CORKY

The purpose of the piece is to excoriate enabling Trump supporters and to humiliate them by pointing out they are engaging in some of the same behaviors that made Bubba apologists so disgusting; behaviors that these people condemned a couple of decades ago.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 02:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What I described, rather accurately, is the purpose of the piece.
#7 | POSTED BY CORKY

Which you clearly didn't read. Because if you did, you'd know that it doesn't fit your characterizations at all.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 02:45 PM | Reply

Last paragraph of the piece:

"But Gorsuch" is the new "but abortion." Bob Mueller is the new Ken Starr. "Fake news" is the new "vast right-wing conspiracy." Hypocrisy abounds, and but for the double standards, many of Trump's most zealous defenders would have no standards at all. Cultural decay? The loss of public trust? Credibility gaps? Let the pastors worry about all that. In the meantime, get on or under the Trump Train, conservatives. There's a news cycle to win.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"But Gorsuch" is the new "but abortion." Bob Mueller is the new Ken Starr. "Fake news" is the new "vast right-wing conspiracy."

And you really don't recognize just how ridiculous that whole comment is. Equating Ken Starr's investigation of Whitewater ending up with the Monica Lewinski scandal, fake news equating with the very realy right wing conspiracy against the Clintons or Gorsuch is the new "but abortion?"

That is a laughable string of sentences, a preposterous thought, and just plain dumb.

I'd love to see Mr. French say that to Bob Mueller's face. Ken Starr was a scumbag, Bob Mueller has been a very principled public servant his entire life.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- the same behaviors

Not the same behaviors at all; Clinton prevaricated awkwardly, Trump is a congenital daily liar.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 02:59 PM | Reply

And you really don't recognize just how ridiculous that whole comment is. Equating Ken Starr's investigation of Whitewater ending up with the Monica Lewinski scandal, fake news equating with the very realy right wing conspiracy against the Clintons or Gorsuch is the new "but abortion?"
That is a laughable string of sentences, a preposterous thought, and just plain dumb.
I'd love to see Mr. French say that to Bob Mueller's face. Ken Starr was a scumbag, Bob Mueller has been a very principled public servant his entire life.

#11 | POSTED BY DANNI

You missed it entirely.

This is what he is saying: Democrats tarred and feathered Starr. Trump's most zealous supporters are beginning to do the same thing to Mueller. Hillary blamed her husband's troubles on a vast RW conspiracy. For Trump's supporters the VRWC is "Fake News".

He's ripping Trump's enabling supporters.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 03:04 PM | Reply

Not the same behaviors at all; Clinton prevaricated awkwardly, Trump is a congenital daily liar.
#12 | POSTED BY CORKY

It isn't about Clinton vs. Trump. It's about their apologists and enabling supporters. The Clinton parallel is there to call out Trump's supporters as many of them are doing what they condemned a couple of decades ago.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 03:06 PM | Reply

If you guys are going to rip the piece, you kind of need to read it first.

Your characterizations aren't anywhere close to what was actually written.

It's like a movie critic who bashes a film he didn't watch.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 03:08 PM | Reply

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.

Trump is a quack who sees intellect as an encumbrance.

#16 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-06-14 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

lol, Jeffy.....

I can see where some NR readers with Bubba Derangement Syndrome might accept some kind of equivalency between behavior to hide a personal problem and behavior to justify extremely bad policy for America, and I understand why the writer would use inherent rwing BDS to make his anti-Trump point... I just pointed out that the analogy breaks down before it gets out of the gate to non-BDS sufferers.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 03:15 PM | Reply

I thought the comparisons were spot-on.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 03:16 PM | Reply

#18

Of course you did. If I read of any BDS or HDS cures, I'll let you know.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 03:20 PM | Reply

If you guys are going to rip the piece, you kind of need to read it first.

I have to agree with Jeff here, the article is far more critical of Trump's supporters than anything else (although it does bash Clinton relentlessly, but what do you expect of the NRO). Case in point:

What's old is new again. Donald Trump and his core supporters aren't just following the Clinton playbook, they should be disciplined for plagiarism. It's all there. Trump exploits the loyalty and gratitude of supporters shocked and relieved by his surprise win. He persuades them to hold him to an entirely different standard (Lies and threats that we'd never tolerate from a Democrat? That's just Trump being Trump. You gotta understand, he's an outer-borough kid who knows how to deliver a punch. He's not a sissy elitist!) and then demands that his critics be better than he is.

Lost in the anger is a serious look at the truth (and implications) of his allegations. Did a president demand personal loyalty from an FBI director? Did he improperly ask him to drop an active criminal investigation of a former close adviser? Did he circumvent normal channels and demand that Comey, in essence, "clear" him publicly? Did Trump fire him when he failed to comply with these demands, and then hide the ball about the reason? Instead, we get the Ken Starring of James Comey and Robert Mueller. It's not enough to trash Comey; now there's blood in the water around Mueller. Men like Newt Gingrich have pivoted on a dime. On May 17, Gingrich is declared that "Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity." On June 12, he attacked Mueller, saying that it was "time to rethink."

The goal is clear -- to remove the focus from the actual claims against Trump and instead focus on the alleged perfidy of his opponents. Who do you want to win? The man who beat Hillary Clinton? Or the backstabbers in the "deep state" who are launching a "soft coup"? And through it all, Trump dissembles and bullies -- secure in the knowledge that his supporters will attack and seek to destroy his opponents, all while "defending" his own dishonesty by declaring, "It's just Trump being Trump. He fights."

Trump can't win reelection with just his base, and there are already signs that outside the conservative bubble, Trump's act is wearing thin. In conservative-land, it's widely said that Comey "failed," that he's been completely discredited. Outside the bubble, Americans overwhelming believe Comey and disbelieve Trump.

Thanks for this Jeff, some of us actually read what is linked here.

#20 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 03:20 PM | Reply

Clinton prevaricated awkwardly, Trump is a congenital daily liar.

#12 | Posted by Corky

Do you remember what bubba was impeached for? Telling tall tails to the grand jury while he was under oath. Now that's a lair.

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-06-14 03:20 PM | Reply

If you guys are going to rip the piece, you kind of need to read it first.

Your characterizations aren't anywhere close to what was actually written.

It's like a movie critic who bashes a film he didn't watch.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ

Jef............ they can't get beyond the headline. Their attention span is too short.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-06-14 03:22 PM | Reply

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.

#16 | Posted by kudzu

WTF does that have to do with anything? He became that while dodging the draft here in the US.

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-06-14 03:23 PM | Reply

POSTED BY SNIPER

There is no cure.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 03:27 PM | Reply

Hooray!

Someone took the time to read the article before commenting on it. Kudos LCL.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 03:30 PM | Reply

The equivalencies were false, but they were believable to CDS sufferers, so it's understandable why the author used them.

Know your dumbass audience.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-14 03:35 PM | Reply

It isn't about Clinton vs. Trump. It's about their apologists and enabling supporters. The Clinton parallel is there to call out Trump's supporters as many of them are doing what they condemned a couple of decades ago.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some people are just going to be butthurt by the two being mentioned in the same sentence regardless of the point being made. Their objections will make more sense once you realize that they don't actually care what point the article is trying to make.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-14 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"It isn't about Clinton vs. Trump. It's about their apologists and enabling supporters. The Clinton parallel is there to call out Trump's supporters as many of them are doing what they condemned a couple of decades ago.
"

Clinton parallel? What utter nonsense.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 04:24 PM | Reply

Clinton parallel? What utter nonsense.

#28 | POSTED BY DANNI

Not at all. See #20. Or, read the linked article.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 04:29 PM | Reply

Sorry Jeff but I'm not interested in reading a Clinton hit piece on NRO. I read too many back in the 90's. I honestly don't have much respect for National Review. The very idea of creating an equivalency between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump is ridiculous and insulting to Clinton.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 04:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sorry Jeff but I'm not interested in reading a Clinton hit piece on NRO

Then why are you commenting on the piece as if you've read it?

Fact is, you have no idea what the piece is about. You think you do, but you don't.

You'd probably enjoy it as it rips Trump supporters up and down.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 04:36 PM | Reply

If you don't have much respect for NRO I'm guessing there is not a conservative writer, anywhere, who you would even consider reading.

They can't all be bad.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 04:38 PM | Reply

I want to write an article comparing the parallels between Nixon and Trump. Much closer to reality.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 04:46 PM | Reply

"If you don't have much respect for NRO I'm guessing there is not a conservative writer, anywhere, who you would even consider reading."

I don't have the least bit of respect for anyone that writes an article equating Bill Clinton with Donald Trump. Realize Trump invited Duerte to the White House, invited the Russians right into the Oval Office and excluded the American press and photographers while allowing the Russians to have both of their own present. The Russians hacked into our elections and Trump doesn't seem to even care, probably because he knows it benefited him. Bill Clinton, for all his faults was never a traitor to his country while the same cannot be said about Donald Trump and everyone knows it though Republicans won't admit it.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 04:55 PM | Reply

I don't have the least bit of respect for anyone that writes an article equating Bill Clinton with Donald Trump

The article equates Trump's supporters with Clinton's supporters.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 05:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#25

No worries, I generally try to understand the point that the author (aside from any preconceived notion I may have) is trying to make before commenting, if at all.

Unfortunately most of the people on this blog look at the title and who posted it and fire away...which underscores their stupidity and the inanity of their posts.

#36 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 05:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If the point of the article was to shame Trump supporters who railed against Clinton for doing mildly comparable things, then it failed on Sniper.
Trump and Clinton may be as -----, but Trump is more corrupt, a terrible leader and possibly a traitor.

#37 | Posted by bored at 2017-06-14 06:30 PM | Reply

Wow Jeff, this article combines deflection, false equivelencies, and idiocy: Aka the Jeffecta Trifecta.

#38 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-06-14 11:17 PM | Reply

Registered D's only read echo chamber pieces.

#39 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-06-14 11:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I thought the comparisons were spot-on.

It clearly shows you political hatred of Trump as well as Clinton.

This is nothing but garbage, all the way around. The foundations are not even close to being similar.

#40 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-06-14 11:33 PM | Reply

Both are right wing economic small government supporters.

both have big ego's both of them are liars both of them are trash

#41 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-06-15 02:05 AM | Reply

Clinton wanted to cut the hell out of American safety net and did.

Trump wants to do the same thing plus he wants to destroy Obama care and leave maybe up to 20 million with out any health care.

Clinton didnt do that but Clinton did want to partially privatize social security

#42 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-06-15 02:27 AM | Reply

This is nothing but garbage, all the way around. The foundations are not even close to being similar.

#40 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

I take it you didn't read the article.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-15 01:29 PM | Reply

"...this piece is an indictment of Trump's enabling supporters." - #1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 02:05 PM

Finally! jeffj does some honest introspection.

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read the piece.

It's --------.

And Clinton was in office for 8 yrs.

Dump's barely made 6 mos.

#45 | Posted by Angrydad at 2017-06-15 07:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort