What Is Mitch McConnell Thinking?

Josh Holmes, the Mitch McConnell acolyte who defends him with the sleek loyalty of Grima Wormtongue with a full Windsor, called me a dipshit the other day for reporting a quote from a deputy chief of staff for a U.S. senator. I don’t take it personally, but I do think it’s indicative that McConnell world is a bit on tilt at the moment. Having been such a failure this cycle even as the House Republicans performed so impressively can’t feel good. The McConnell folks were all projecting confidence about the two Georgia seats, saying the $2,000 stimulus checks both candidates supported were unnecessary, building up the amazing ground game and effectiveness of the most expensive advertising blitz in the history of the U.S. Senate — so to have their effort turn into such an embarrassing disaster has to have them feeling a bit defensive.

Now comes McConnell’s impeachment effort, as effective and well-thought as his filibuster defense effort, and it is already looking like an embarrassing and risky bit of 4D chess. His acolytes are already depicting this as being some kind of redo of Tea Party crazies versus the establishment. It’s obviously nothing of the kind. Graham, Scott, Scott, Cotton, Rubio, Paul, Lee, Johnson, Hawley, Cruz, Ernst, Kennedy, Risch, Cramer, and Cornyn are all on the same side here: This impeachment is vindictive, unserious, and constitutionally dubious, in addition to being politically suicidal with small-dollar donors and the only path to making Donald Trump form a third party. This position is obviously true, and disputing it requires you to twist your brain in such a way that you end up as Mitt Romney. Nobody wants that.

The GOP Senate call this week was consistent with that. “During a GOP Conference call last week, Sen. KEVIN CRAMER (R-N.D.) was among several senators who said he was flooded with calls from constituents demanding he acquit Trump. He also said he was hearing from donors — including at least one from the McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund super PAC — who wanted the GOP to do more to defend Trump, according to a person on the call.

“Other GOP senators on the line — including RON JOHNSON (Wis.), JOHN KENNEDY (La.), RICK SCOTT (Fla.) and JAMES RISCH (Idaho) — complained that they were even holding an impeachment trial. They peppered McConnell with questions about their options for getting out of it, including possibly appealing to the Supreme Court to throw out the case.

“McConnell’s staff explained to the senators that the chamber would not likely have standing to stop this in court. And McConnell made clear he did not view it as his job to help Trump with his strategy. Talk to Trump ally LINDSEY GRAHAM if you have advice, the Republican leader told senators floating ideas to assist Trump.”

Marco Rubio and Rand Paul both went on the air yesterday to denounce this process, and it’s worth watching both of their appearances. The effort by Chris Wallace and George Stephanopoulos to demand that the senators defend not lighting their party on fire is pretty blatant, and there’s not a lot of subtlety to it. Essentially, they want the Republicans in the Senate to accomplish a goal they cannot: eliminate the possibility of a Trump comeback in 2024. But doing so would also obviously encourage the destruction of the Republican Party.

I can think of no single act that would do more to increase the likelihood Trump forms a third party, and Wallace and Stephanopoulos (and Tapper and Todd) know that. So let’s not play pretend. A push for impeachment doubles down on the corporate donor loss with an online donor loss and a devastating hit to the ability to channel Republican rage toward electoral benefit. It is an act of political suicide. One cannot dissolve the people and elect another. Your job is to represent them.

Source

Several Super Bowl Advertisers Bow Out over Fear of Offending Viewers

A growing number of big-name advertisers, including Coke and Hyundai, are skipping the Super Bowl this year for fear of not striking the right tone amid America’s contentious political landscape.

Several companies have decided not to buy Super Bowl time, some for the first time in over a decade.

The reason? According to the New York Post, the talk from insiders is that members of multiple boardrooms are finally coming to realize that they’re going to infuriate half the country no matter what they do.

In recent years, advertisers were thrilled to push the Black Lives Matter and Antifa ideologies or to push transgenderism and the #MeToo movement. But this year, not so much.

“Every client conversation I’ve had these days is about who is going to be offended by this ad,” Rob Schwartz, chief executive officer of ad agency TBWA\Chiat\Day, told the Post. “There’s a lot of discussion about risk mitigation. What that tends to do is that it makes things very bland and not effective, or it forces you to look at universal topics like hope or humor.

“The country is so divided and split right down the middle that I don’t think that there’s a commercial that will appease both sides,” added Bill Oberlander, co-founder and executive creative of ad agency Oberlander.

The result has been that the Super Bowl will not sell out of its ad spots this year, the paper reported. And some of the companies opting out have been with the NFL’s biggest game for over a decade.

Coca-Cola is out this year, the report said. So is Hyundai, Olay, Avocados From Mexico, Little Caesars, and Ford Motors. Most of these companies have had a Super Bowl ad every year since 2010.
There are still some big names buying their traditional time, granted. M&M’s, TurboTax, Anheuser-Busch, Toyota, Pringles, and Mountain Dew have already ponied up $5.5 million per spot — a price tag down from last year’s $5.6 million, itself an indication of trouble for the NFL.

Corporations are finally looking to avoid the backlashes to left-winery that occurred to companies such as Gillette razors, which lost $8 billion in write-downs in 2019 after ads pushing transgenderism and so-called toxic masculinity. And as far back as 2015, Jeep was roasted for showing images of foreign landmarks in an ad playing the traditional American standard song, “This Land Is Your Land.”

But the left has attacked woke ads, as well. In 2017 Pepsi took the slings and arrows of the far left when its ad featured Kendall Jenner being nice to a police officer during the soft drink maker’s Black Lives Matter-themed ad. And in 2019, liberals were unhappy with the Super Bowl spots aired by T-Mobile, whose ads they claimed pushed “sexist stereotypes.”

Ultimately, playing it safe seems to be the byword for 2021.

The Post added that the experts looking at the plans insiders are reporting for their Super Bowl ads show that most of these companies are playing it safe and turning away from the hardcore, left-wing ideologies. This year’s ads will mostly be heartwarmers and humorous ads instead of political jeremiads.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Source

A Classic Example of Biased Political Reporting: Hartcher on Russia

By James O’Neill

The Sydney Morning Herald has always been regarded as a reasonably responsible newspaper. Although editorially it was generally a supporter of the misnamed Liberal Party, its opinion pieces generally try to pursue an open mind. Its editorial commentary of course generally favoured one side of the political divide rather than the other. The writers were generally frank about their perspective, favouring one side or the other. Many of their writers strove for a fundamentally neutral stance, overtly favouring neither one side of politics nor the other.

One could always agree or disagree with a writer’s perspective. As the old adage had it, your interpretation is your own, the facts however are sacred. Thus, it was possible to read a column by a writer from a different political perspective, but except the thrust of their argument because the facts that were presenting led one to a particular conclusion.

The Sydney Morning Herald has, however, moved away from the position of the facts being sacred, leaving their interpretation to be a matter of preference. The specific example which brought this vividly to mind was the recent article by the Herald international editor, Peter Hartcher.

The article was entitled “Global Threat from Strongmen” and appeared in the SMH opinion page on Tuesday, 19 January 2021. Most of the article is devoted to an unqualified attack upon Russia, and in particular its president Vladimir Putin. It commences by asserting that Putin is displaying “a new brazenness.” It was always obvious, Hartcher baldly states without a shred of evidence to support it, that Putin was “directing the assassinations and disappearances of his opponents.”

Killing his opponents with radioactive isotopes and nerve agents were methods, Hartcher claims which “might go undetected in most circumstances”.  Really? Where is the evidence for this extraordinary (and false) claim? The evidence does not exist because it is simply not true, either as to its alleged non-detectability, and to the perpetrator of such acts.

Next comes a vague reference to the Soviet-era Novichok which, we are solemnly assured, “can’t be bought at your local chemist or even on the dark web.” What is this vague allegation actually evidence of? When was Novichok used outside the fantastic and vague allegations surrounding former Russian spy Sergei Skripal who with his daughter is currently illegally held incommunicado by the British?

Is Hartcher unaware that Novichok is a drug held by a number of western countries, and that if used will assuredly kill its victim within minutes? Hartcher then goes on to cite whom he calls the “hero of Russia’s opposition movement, the charismatic Alexei Navalny” who took ill on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow in August last year. Navalny may be a “hero” in Hartcher’s eyes. He is significantly less in the eyes of the Russian public, or whom 2% voted for him when he stood for office.

Hartcher is not content with Navalny taking ill on his flight to Moscow. He had to have been the victim of a “suspicious poisoning”. That the plane was diverted so that Navalny could be rushed to hospital where the examining doctors found no evidence of “Novichok” or any other illicit substance is not mentioned.

Neither does Hartcher mention the fact that the doctors voluntarily allowed Navalny to be flown to Berlin. He was not “wrested” from the hospital. It is absurd to suggest that the plane would have been allowed into Russian airspace and those on board allowed to “wrest” him from the hospital and be flown to Berlin. The idea is so fantastic it is difficult to believe that a senior writer could advance it is a serious idea.

We are then treated to an alleged telephone call that Navalny is said to have made from Berlin, to an unsuspecting Federal Security Bureau officer who, according to Navalny, blurts out a fantastic story about a bungled assassination attempt, thereby exposing Putin’s “fearsome security apparatus as ineffective and worse, ridiculous.”

This is the same security service that originally failed to kill Navalny, failed to finish the job whilst he was in hospital, and allowed him to be whisked away to expose to the world their incompetence. Are we seriously expected to believe this unadulterated rubbish?

Hartcher then claims that Putin was “so afraid of Navalny, he barred him from standing for election in 2018.” Actually, Putin did no such thing. Navalny was barred from standing for election because of a criminal conviction, for which he received a suspended sentence. He breached the conditions of his release by staying in Germany, despite receiving a warning from the authorities that he was in breach of his sentence conditions. Hartcher fails to mention these inconvenient facts.

Navalny voluntarily returned to Russia, despite having the certain knowledge he would be arrested. Moments before being arrested, Navalny utters the words we are told; “Putin fears me most. I am not afraid.”

Hartcher goes on in the article to turn his attention to another “authoritarian leader to drop the pretence of any sort of restraint” when he writes a short piece on Chinese president Xi Jinping. But by now one knows what to expect from the mangled worldview of the international editor so I will leave the interested reader to read Hartcher’ blessedly short mangling of Chinese history. If they have the stomach for the continued distortion of history represented in this alleged journalist’s writing.

*Geopolitical analyst.  He may be contacted at jamesoneill83@icloud.com

Source

Washington Post Quietly Removes Cruel Joke From Kamala Harris Interview

In true Orwellian fashion, the Washington Post recently memory-holed an offensive joke told by now-Vice President Kamala Harris on her presidential campaign trail.

In the feature piece, first published in 2019, Harris made a joke about inmates, likening rest after weeks on the campaign trail to the feeling a prisoner gets when they received a morsel of food.

“I actually got sleep,” Kamala said, sitting in a Hilton conference room, beside her sister, and smiling as she recalled walks on the beach with her husband and that one morning SoulCycle class she was able to take.

“That kind of stuff,” Kamala said between sips of iced tea, “which was about bringing a little normal to the days, that was a treat for me.”

“I mean, in some ways it was a treat,” Maya said. “But not really.”

“It’s a treat that a prisoner gets when they ask for, ‘A morsel of food please,’” Kamala said shoving her hands forward as if clutching a metal plate, her voice now trembling like an old British man locked in a Dickensian jail cell. “‘And water! I just want wahtahhh….’ Your standards really go out the f—ing window.”

“Kamala burst into laughter.”

The Washington Post, according to Reason, removed that particular segment of the interview earlier this month, shortly before the new VP took office.

Harris has plenty of experience as a prosecutor through her positions as San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general. During her time in the legal field, Harris jailed more than 1,000 people for marijuana violations and later laughed about it, a move that received much criticism from some of her Democratic primary rivals such as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. She also ordered a raid on a citizen journalist’s home after he released undercover videos indicting Planned Parenthood for trafficking aborted baby body parts.

According to Reason, the Washington Post reinstated the original version of the article to a different page, which includes Harris’s mocking, but kept the new, revised version as well.

“We should have kept both versions of the story on the Post’s site (the original and updated one), rather than redirecting to the updated version,” Kris Coratti, the Post’s vice president for communications, told Reason in a statement on Friday. “We have now done that, and you will see the link to the original at the top of the updated version.”

According to Fox News, the Washington Post admitted that it “repurposed and updated some of our strong biographical pieces about both political figures” right before Inauguration Day.

Source

New York Times: Unite The Country Against The Trump Voters

The New York Times published an article on Thursday amplifying the calls of people who think President Joe Biden’s plan for unity needs to include “healing [that] requires holding perpetrators accountable.”

“Mr. Biden should not pitch unity to those who oppose shared political power, they say, but should unite the country in defeating those who stand in the way,” the author wrote. Using interviews with some of the civil rights activists involved in the 2017 Charlottesville riots, the article promotes the idea that Biden should “go beyond seeing unity as the ultimate political goal and prioritize a sense of justice that uplifts the historically marginalized.”

“Unity follows justice,” one of the interviewees stated.

The article then continued to explain and give a voice to the protesters who believe unity is not feasible with people who support President Donald Trump.

“We have a whole major political party that, too large of a section of it, supports undemocratic practices, voter suppression, and the coddling of these conspiracy theories,” Dr. Jalane Schmidt, an activist and professor at the University of Virginia, told the Times. “So healing? Unity? You can’t do that with people who don’t adhere to basic democratic principles.”

“Unity is not uniformity, and unity is not without accountability,” a local reverend added. “It’s really hard to be unified with people if you don’t have a common understanding of truth and a common understanding of justice. Otherwise, we’re speaking completely different languages.”

The author continued to carry this narrative, writing that the activists’ words should “challenge Mr. Biden, Democrats and the country to see this month’s attack at the Capitol not as an isolated riot inspired by a divisive president, but as the latest flashpoint in a longer civil rights struggle that threatens the nation’s core values.”

The underlying issue with Biden’s so-called unity, the interviewees overwhelmingly claimed, is the opposition from others to their efforts to push a racial agenda. The only solution, they continued, is to discipline any dissenters.

“For them, this year’s mob violence took aim at the peaceful transfer of presidential power, but it’s the broader transfer of democratic power — from a largely white America to a rising multicultural coalition — that is testing the nation,” the author concluded.

These words echo the sentiments reflected in Biden’s inauguration speech, where, shortly after calling for a united nation, he lobbed accusations at Trump supporters, employing language such as “political extremism, white supremacy,” and “domestic terrorism.”

Source

Hemingway: Media Coverage Of Biden Inauguration Like ‘Watching a Jeffrey Toobin Zoom Call’

The Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway slammed the corporate media’s hypocritical coverage of President Joe Biden’s inauguration, saying it was a “tongue bath.”

“Yesterday was horrible to watch how the media were losing all sense of themselves. The tongue baths that they gave Joe Biden, it was just embarrassing to watch. It was like watching a Jeffrey Toobin Zoom call or something,” Hemingway said.

The biggest problem with the media’s reaction to Biden’s inauguration, Hemingway continued, wasn’t that they were “uncritical” of the new president and his big day, but it was because they played favorites and refused to take the same approach during former President Donald Trump’s ceremonies four years ago and throughout his entire administration.

“It was hatred and hostility every minute of the last four years for Donald Trump and his supporters, and people aren’t forgetting that. They remember how much pain they went through with the media saying that every single thing he did was the worst thing ever, and they see how hypocritical they are,” she said.

While Biden has already taken strong actions that require scrutiny, such as firing a top prosecutor on the National Labor Relations Board before his term expired and sidelining people in national security, Hemingway said the only noise from the media is praise.

“There are many things that a credible, noncorrupt media would be doing to hold this president accountable if they were anything other than propagandists,” Hemingway concluded.

Source

Nolte: Trust in National Media Hits All-Time Low

“Trust in traditional media has declined to an all-time low, and many news professionals are determined to do something about it,” reports the far-left Axios.

Rest assured that my trust in Axios is at an all-time low, so I double-checked what I could here.

There are actually two parts to this glorious story. The first part is the gloriously healthy lack of trust wise Americans now have in our fake national media. The second part is the glorious load of terrible ideas the fake national media have for solving their trust problem, ideas so awful they could only come from a fake media.

A majority of 56 percent of Americans know that “journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”

Well, no shit.

An even larger majority, 58 percent, know that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.”

Well, no shit.

Only 18 percent of Republicans trust the media, while 57 percent of Democrats trust the media.

In this particular study, the 46 percent number (those still dumb enough to trust the national media) is a collapse from 57 percent last year and close to 60 percent in 2019.

Which brings me to this question…

What kind of idiot still trusts the national media?

Oh, and only 27 percent of us trust social media, which is what happens when social media is run by left-wing fascists.

Now we get to my favorite part…

Get a load of what these preening idiots intend to do to “fix” this trust problem…

You would think that they would say things like…

Perhaps, rather than editorialize and lie, we should present the facts and allow people to make up their own minds?

Or…

Perhaps, we should stop lying and misleading the public?

We all know the real solution to the trust-in-media problem is a ridiculously simple one: stop being dishonest and stop lying. But is a “stop lying” policy the media’s plan to regain our trust? Nope. Of course not. Instead, we get to watch the media fail to regain our trust with this LOL approach…

No joke… These morons want to use coercion and CEOs to win us back [emphasis original throughout]:

Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan writes that “our goal should go beyond merely putting truthful information in front of the public. We should also do our best to make sure it’s widely accepted.”

“[M]ake sure it’s widely accepted.” In other words…

Yuuuu vill accept ze truthful information or yuuuu vill be blacklisted and reeducated!

Wait, it gets dumber…

Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won’t turn the trend around on its own. What’s needed is for trusted institutions to visibly embrace the news media.

CEOs(a/k/a the fourth branch of government) are at or near the top of Edelman’s list of trusted institutions.

CEOs will now be the arbiters of facts and truth.

What a brilliant idea.

What planet are these idiots living on?

You see, regaining our trust will never be about something as simple as reporting facts and truth and what’s happening and then getting out of our way. Sadly, when you are as hopelessly corrupt and power-hungry as our broken media, honesty is much more difficult than plotting all these doomed-to-fail machinations about blackmailing CEOs into saying things like Believe Axios. Axios is truth. Truth is Axios.

If you want us to trust you… Stop with the drama. Stop with the preening. Treat Democrats with the same skepticism and hostility you do Republicans. Stop making everything about YOU. Move to Kansas. Stop calling us racist. Stop telling us how to think… Just be professionals.

But they will never-ever-ever do that. Ever.

The media are broken beyond repair — and thank the Good Lord for that. A cult of elites preaching to their own choir in their own echo chamber. They have been exposed for what they always were, and now, no one trusts them, nor should they.

It is long past time for New Media to move in and fill this void. Let’s stop whining about the corporate media, stop screaming No Fair! and get on with the business of journalism and analysis; get on with the business of building our own thing.

New Media has successfully dragged these bloodsuckers out into the sunlight and now they are writhing in agony as they die off… Good for us. Well done. Now it’s time to walk away, to stop complaining about bias…

Unless the media lie or try to gin up violence, it’s time to ignore the media and build, build, build… 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Source

CNN’s Van Jones: ‘Mesmerizing’ to Watch Biden’s Functional Government — I’m ‘Crying,’ Thank Jesus

During his network’s coverage of President Joe Biden’s inauguration ceremony, CNN political commentator Van Jones said that he was crying with joy while watching the first few hours of the Biden administration.

Jones said, “It’s just memorizing to watch a functional government doing functional government type things. I mean, just a press conference, and there was a human, and the person said words, and the words made sense. Then somebody asked a question, and then the person answered the question, and you are just crying. Oh my God.”

Reacting to Jones’ emotion, anchor Anderson Cooper said, “This is like a “Saturday Night Live” skit.”

Panelist David Axelrod asked, “How long will this go on?”

Jones said, “I don’t know. It is wonderful. Thank God, hallelujah, and Jesus, I’m so happy.”

He added, “Then you had Biden literally was just swearing in the people and telling them to be nice to each other, and if you don’t, I’m going to fire you. That was powerful.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Source

Media Fever Dream Unfulfilled After They Predicted Trump Would Leave Office In Chains

Despite the left’s insistence that his departure would require force, outgoing President Donald Trump peacefully left the White House and Washington, D.C., on Wednesday as his successor, President Joe Biden, was inaugurated.

Long before Biden’s arrival in office, many corporate media pundits and Democratic politicians insinuated that Trump would not leave office unless he were physically forced. These cries and arguments grew louder after a mob consisting mostly of Trump supporters rioted at the Capitol just two weeks before the inauguration.

In August, Democratic Rep. James Clyburn said Trump wouldn’t leave the White House on Jan. 20.

“I don’t think he plans to leave the White House. He doesn’t plan to have fair and unfettered elections,” Clyburn said, comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. “I believe that he plans to install himself in some kind of emergency way to continue to hold onto office.”

In late November, former President Barack Obama quipped to late-night host Jimmy Kimmel that the Navy SEALs could remove Trump if he refused to leave the White House when he was supposed to.

“You know the White House well. You lived there for eight years. Are there places someone could hide? Like, if, say, they were going to be removed? Are there little cubby holes or anything that you know about?” Kimmel asked.

“Well, I think we can always send the Navy SEALs in to dig him out,” Obama said, laughing.

Others on the left, including politicians and journalists, also suggested Trump would try to hijack the military to stay in office, no matter the election results.

“No One Knows How To Get Trump To Leave The White House In January,” one Vanity Fair headline read.

Instead of being dragged away kicking and screaming or inciting an insurrection like some on the left wrongly predicted, Trump addressed a peaceful and admiring crowd on the tarmac of Joint Base Andrews the morning of Jan. 20, reiterating his agenda and expressing hope.

“This has been an incredible four years. We’ve accomplished so much together. … Remember us when you see these things happening, have you remember us. … We have worked hard. We’ve left it all, as the athletes would say, we’ve left it all on the field,” Trump said, reviewing some of his administration’s achievements including the creation of Space Force, the revival of the American economy before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, tax cuts, extra care for veterans, facilitating the development of a vaccine in nine months, and nominating many judges to federal courts and confirming three to the Supreme Court.

“You are amazing. This is a great, great country. It is my greatest honor and privilege to have been your president,” Trump concluded. “I will always fight for you. I will be watching, I will be listening. And I will tell you that the future of this country has never been better. I wish the new administration great luck and great success. I think they’ll have great success. They have the foundation to do something really spectacular. And again, we put it in a position like it’s never been before.”

Trump also pledged not to disappear from the political arena.

“We will be back in some form,” Trump promised as the crowd chanted, “Thank you, Trump” and “USA.”

Source

Beltway Press Rings In Biden Inauguration With Excitement Of Four-Year Vacation

President Joe Biden was officially sworn in Wednesday alongside Vice President Kamala Harris, taking the reins of power amid a turbulent moment in the nation’s history as America battles a once-in-a-generation pandemic surging while deep divisions grip the country.

“To overcome these challenges, to restore the soul and secure the future of America requires so much more than words. It requires the most elusive of all things in democracy: unity, unity,” Biden said, pleading for a fractured nation to unify after vilifying it as white supremacist. Here’s what Biden said just before:

The cry for survival comes from planet itself, a cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear. And now a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.

No matter how deeply unserious Biden’s calls for unity might be, given the president has chosen to pursue a partisan progressive agenda from day one this afternoon, weaponizing identity politics while refusing to condemn a divisive impeachment of his predecessor, Democratic allies in legacy media were ready to cheer Biden’s arrival just as much as cheer for Trump’s exit while they prepare for a four-year vacation from hard-hitting journalism.

“A whole new day is at hand,” wrote taxpayer-funded PBS White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, whose entire Twitter feed this inauguration day reads as if she is a Democratic spokeswoman. Of course, Alcindor’s cover as an activist masquerading as a reporter has been well-documented throughout the Trump years.

Alcindor’s glee was shared by virtually every other Beltway reporter and partisan Democratic pundit in Washington, the latter of whom are really just the honest versions of the first.

Others gushed over the Democrats’ outfits, after legacy outlets spent years disparaging First Lady Melania Trump’s wardrobe with dubious double-standards. Those attending Wednesday’s inauguration did look stunning, as did Melania Trump departing for her own four-year vacation.

Racism is now over too, apparently, according to this contributor at Vice.

The young activist poet who delivered a partisan speech rather than a unifying poem was also awarded prejudiced praise.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry didn’t engage in the overly adoring coverage offered by the rest of the pundit class. Instead, Lowry made a point that while Biden’s comments felt genuine and sincere, they missed the mark when paired with the first actions of the unity-minded president.

“It’s obviously much easier to talk unity than achieve it, especially when pursuing a partisan, progressive agenda from Day One,” Lowry wrote on Twitter.

And of course, after banning Trump as part of Big Tech’s coordinated purge of conservative voices leading up to the inauguration, Twitter is promoting Biden.

Source