Thursday, November 17, 2022

The New York Post does a reverse ferret

     Consider the conundrum of the reformed sinner. Should their past wrongs be held against them? Or the slate wiped clean, to celebrate their epiphany by joyously welcoming them back into the band of the righteous?
     It depends on why they made the shift. A convicted murderer who runs into a burning home to save a baby has still done something heroic; it might not obviate his crime, but it does accrue to his credit, assuming he didn't do it with an eye on the cameras. The key is whether it was done selfishly, or for pure motives. Liz Cheney might be a rock-ribbed Republican who adheres to their various revanchist policy beliefs. But her leading the Jan. 6 committee still was magnificent, and I didn't join my fellow liberals grumbling about her stance on abortion rights or her telling Dick Cheney she loves him. The act was too important, too self-damaging among her cowardly and traitorous peers.

The moment the votes were counted,
the New York Post reversed course.
     Her motives seemed to be a desire to do what is best for the country. It can be a tough call. Mike Pence certainly did the right thing on Jan. 6.  
     Of course, his years of groveling compliance helped bring our nation to the brink. And his book tour courage now has the air of a rat darting out of its hole to nibble on the carcass of a rhino. Compare Cheney's self-immolation to the New York Post this past week doing what my friends in the British media call a "reverse ferret" — an institutional 180 degree spin in outlook. That is a different matter.
     Yes, I am glad that, after the Republican midterm shellacking, they licked their finger, tested the wind, read the memo from Rupert Murdoch and reversed course, turning on Donald Trump with a snarl. Welcome to the Resistance. 
     Yes, I think their treatment of Loser L. McLosey's throwing his hat in the ring, "FLORIDA MAN MAKES ANNOUNCEMENT," reporting that he is making his third run for president, is epic, ranking right up there with "HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR."
     The Post treated him as one of those "Florida man..." stories (Since 2013, the sharing of "Florida man..." headlines highlighting the Sunshine State's supposed lock on tales of down-market and absurd criminal behavior, have been a source of Twitter humor: "Florida Man Arrested in Local Park for Practicing Karate on Swans" and such.
     The Post ran across the bottom of its front page Wednesday, sending the reader to page 26 — part of the joke, deep in the paper, along the tide tables and the horoscope. The Sun-Times played it straight, story on page 1. Myself, I would have delivered a bit more heat with that. Mainstream publications seem to finally have figured out how to treat Trump. Even NPR tweeted the news this way: "BREAKING: Donald Trump, who tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and inspired a deadly riot at the Capitol in a desperate attempt to keep himself in power, has filed to run for president again in 2024." That is both completely factual and the proper light.
     So, returning to my opening question, are the Post now among the good guys. The New York and Washington Posts, brother in arms? Hardly. Why? Because for years the Post, and its Fox parent, amplified and encouraged Trump's bullying, sedition and lies. Because the Post is turning on Trump now for the same reason they embraced him: to kiss up to the powerful. It isn't as if they suddenly care about immigrants. In Rupert Murdoch's calculation, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is more likely to be president in 2024 than the twice-impeached flailing fabulist. It's what I long ago dubbed "Horserace Journalism." Put your bet on the horse you think is going to win. That isn't ethics.   
     Welcome the Post to the fight, but don't turn your back on them. Because the winds could yet change direction.


  1. Horserace Journalism is a great term. It applies to political endorsements as well. Horeserace Endorsements: My firefighter union endorsed Desantis because it was clear he was going to win. His history of vengeance against those who don't support his ideology clearly guided our union leaders.
    Disney suffered a major tax break loss when they supported LGBTQ rights.
    With a supermajority of Republicans in state congress and a narcissist as a governmor, Florida is now an autocracy.
    Illiniois may have a Democrat supermajority but at least you have a governor who keeps the best interest of all its citizens at the forefront.

    1. A union supporting a republican is like a Shaker supporting the Marquis de Sade. Why oh why do people vote against their own self interests?

    2. My Chicagoland Laborer`s Local supported an Illinois State Republican, who won, over a Democrat because the Republican had a better record supporting unions than the Democrat. Sometimes there are exceptions to the rule.

  2. The NY Post is easy the best bad newspaper on Earth.
    That headline at the bottom of the page is going to be yet another classic like the "Headless Body In Topless Bar" one!
    No matter how much I flat out hate the Post's columnists, who are batshit crazy wing-nuts, that line is flat out brilliant!

    1. I think some of their sports columnists are good.

  3. The Sunshine State does not have a monopoly on stories of down-market and absurd criminal behavior, because the Buckeye State is right at its heels. Plenty of, disgusting "Ohio Man" stories in recent years.

    Fat, drunk, ignorant, underemployed, undereducated racist white trailer dwellers impregnating their daughters with turkey basters, shooting their sons after arguments over football games, and letting their exotic animals that a sheriff's posse can stand gloating over piles of dead lions, tigers, and bears. Oh, my...

    O-H...I-O. From blue to purple to red to deep red in a single generation. Beautiful Ohio...a verdant green paradise in the summertime, and orange in the fall. Ohioans? Not so beautiful anymore. Pretty ugly now. Ohio Man, I detest and despise you.

  4. I don't expect the New York Post to become any more liberal, in general, but can still very much appreciate this treatment of the Biggest Loser's announcement. Well played, indeed.

    So many things he's done that would have been deal-breakers for any other politician in the past have just not affected his support. But, I'm actually a bit hopeful that this time will be different, as is perhaps indicated by the Post's reverse ferret. Maybe the only thing certain Republicans won't put up with is losing. And between losing, himself, and backing a bunch of "Big Lie"-supporting losers a week ago, here's hoping they've seen enough.

    Even though in a just society he would be in prison -- for multiple reasons -- I don't know if that will actually ever come to pass. For now, I'll settle for knowing that being ignored and/or mocked by former toadies in the press and elsewhere has got to really piss him off.

    BTW, as others have pointed out, the Constitution does not allow a person to run for a third term as president. So, by announcing his candidacy, he's tacitly admitted that he did not win that second term, after all. He's conceded the 2020 election, at last!

    1. Probably more info than needed. 22nd amendmendment. The amendment prohibits anyone who has been elected president twice from being elected again. Under the amendment, someone who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting more than two years is also prohibited from being elected president more than once. Scholars debate whether the amendment prohibits affected individuals from succeeding to the presidency under any circumstances or whether it applies only to presidential elections. Until the amendment's ratification, the president had not been subject to term limits, but both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (the first and third presidents) decided not to serve a third term, establishing the two-term tradition. In the 1940 and 1944 presidential elections, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the only president to win third and fourth terms, giving rise to concerns about a president serving unlimited terms. So Trump is eligible to run again.

    2. Yes, he's eligible to run again. Because he lost a fair election, which he's never admitted. I was just making a joke, but more info is fine!

  5. "The once elected, twice impeached, disgraced former President who never won a majority of the popular vote, and whose lies of election fraud sparked a violent attack on the Capitol seeks another term." That will do.


Comments are vetted and posted at the discretion of the proprietor.