Re: Spin Cycle: The Fix Is In, And There Was No Fix

On 2025-05-19 3:52 PM, shawn wrote:

On Mon, 19 May 2025 13:52:59 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

On 2025-05-19 1:03 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
>
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-05-19 5:02 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>
Here's the citation to the story that Ubi the shithead plagarized.
>
Spin Cycle: The Fix Is In, And There Was No Fix:
They committed to the narrative...
By Virginia Kruta
The Daily Wire
May 19, 2025
https://www.dailywire.com/news/spin-cycle-the-fix-is-in-and-there-was-no-fix
>

With just days to go before the release of "Original Sin" -- a book exploring
former President Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline from Jake Tapper (CNN)
and Alex Thompson (Axios) -- everyone on the Sunday political shows was
talking about Biden, who knew what, and when they knew it.

>

For those who don't spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television --
and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week's worth of
network and cable news media spin -- The Daily Wire has compiled a short
summary of what you may have missed.

>

. . .

>

Rep. James Clyburn took things to a whole different level on CNN's "State of
the Union," telling anchor Jake Tapper that he wasn't even sure Biden would
be incapable of serving a second term in the White House.

>

"Yes, I thought [he could serve another term] back then. I still think that,
but I don't know that," he said.

>

.@RepJamesClyburn on whether he still believes President Biden could
have served another term: "Yes, I thought that back then. I still
think that, but I don't know that." pic.twitter.com/hfRtH5REyl

>

-- State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) May 18, 2025

>

As to Biden's disastrous debate performance, Clyburn continued to play
defense. "Whether or not that was just an incident or whether that was a
condition that was being kept from people, we have no way of knowing which
one was true," he claimed.

>

.@RepJamesClyburn reflects on Biden's disastrous 2024 debate
performance: "Whether or not that was just an incident or whether
that was a condition that was being kept from people, we have no way
of knowing which one was true." pic.twitter.com/Sso7mSltX0

>

-- State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) May 18, 2025

>

. . .

>

Is it too late to charge Dr. Jill with elder abuse?

>

I don't suppose there's anything that can be done legally about the
media lies about Biden being sharp as a tack but that probably doesn't
matter. We know now that they are shameless liars and their credibility
has suffered a well-earned decline. They are surely aware of that as
their ratings/sales fall ever further.

>

I don't see much of an effort to clean up their acts either: they still
seem determined to gaslight the public with yet more of the same
hysteria that they greeted every word and action uttered by Trump and
his people in his first term. They only calm down when a Democrat is in
the White House and they can go into full-time fluffer mode.

>

It's fine though. They are destroying themselves so here's hoping
they're completely irrelevant in the near future.

>
You might have noticed that America works poorly with two irrelevant
national political parties.
>
You're not going to learn anything about the book from those talking
heads. They're the target of the book. I listened to radio interviews
with the authors. It was quite disturbing. David Plouffe spoke on record;
no one else did. Most recently, he managed Kamala's campaign.
>
The "original sin" of the title was not letting Biden have his choice
for running mate -- Gretchen Whitmer -- after the death of George Floyd.
No one in his administration wanted to work with Kamala and no one
thought she was ready to be president nor win an election.

>
But Harris was "black" so that seemed like an obvious vote-getter with
the Democrats' traditional base, even though a lot of blacks see her as
more South Asian than one of them. Either way, lots of obvious
virtue-signalling points for including Harris on the ticket. Too bad she
was such an unlikable candidate. In any case, America really dodged a
bullet when she failed to excite the electorate.

 She was but then Whitmer was also female so I don't know why she
wasn't allowed to be chosen as running mate or even who is going to
have that power.
 

The Dems have only themselves to blame for their president parlous
state. They ended up running Biden when he was well past his prime
because he was the only one who had a chance against Comrade Bernie and
then saddled him with Harris who was much more an anchor than a sail.

  It's not clear to me that the fault lies with the Democrats in power
as some of what I've read suggested that it was the inner core around
Biden who did their utmost to keep any weaknesses of Biden hidden from
everyone, not just the public. It's too bad they couldn't get Biden to
step aside so the Dems could have had a real race for the Presidency
to get a good candidate.
  

>
But then, rather than having a proper convention to choose a new
candidate from among several prospects, they essentially appointed
Harris. I don't really understand how that happened and can only
speculate that none of the other potential candidates thought they had a
chance of winning from a start that close to Election Day and just
decided to give it to Harris unopposed. They raised a bunch of money and
gave it to her, she blew it all, but failed to impress as a candidate.

 The timing is why I always assumed they went with Harris. She already
had a campaign set up for her by taking over the Biden campaign. If
Biden had stepped aside months earlier I think they would have had a
proper convention to choose another candidate.
 

The Democrats messed up all the way along by not building a bench of
potential candidates going back to Obama's time in office. Everything
else follows from that.

 True, and I can't say the Republicans are doing any better. There are
clearly no standout replacements for Trump when you have people
strongly suggest Vance should be his replacement.

I've heard definite enthusiasm for both Vance and Rubio as Trump's successors. I don't know if any of the rest of his cabinet or major appointments is similarly favoured.
Personally, I've always preferred Ted Cruz over Trump and some of the other senators like Hawley and Kennedy seem very good in hearings; I don't know if they have the chops to be President though.
--
Rhino