Prominent Progressive Belatedly Realizes He Has a Trump Address
Imagine how mortifying it must be to be an outspoken progressive leader, well-known for your furious denunciations of those who dare to defy the Left or show disrespect to President Obama, and everyone learns you live . . . in the Trump Palace in New York City. Yes, this is the embarrassment that faced Keith Olbermann, the temperamental news and sports anchor formerly of MSNBC, formerly of Current, formerly of ESPN, formerly of . . . well, you get the idea. In March -- March! -- Olbermann declared he couldn't stand to live in the Trump property anymore because "because of the degree to which the very name 'Trump' has degraded the public discourse and the nation itself." According to the Wall Street Journal, Olbermann bought the roughly 1,750-square-foot condo for $4.2 million in 2007. It was back in 2011 that Trump was demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate, and suggesting that either Obama wasn't born in the United States or that there was "something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like." Despite Trump's embrace of a claim that the former MSNBC anchor no doubt finds ridiculous, racially incendiary, and an abominable smear, Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. In 2012, Trump offered $5 million if Obama would release his college applications and transcripts and releases his passport history. Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. In 2013, in an interview with ABC News, Trump continued to doubt the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate: "Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows." Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. In 2014, Trump asserted there was a connection between vaccinations and autism: "If I were President I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one time massive shots that a small child cannot take -- AUTISM." Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. In June 2015, announcing his campaign, Trump said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. In November 2015, Trump suggested that a protesters at his rallies "maybe should have been roughed up." Also that month, he said he would consider closing mosques as president, and that he was open to ideas such as tracking Muslim Americans in a database or noting their religious affiliations on identification cards. Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. In December 2015, Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. Olbermann stayed in Trump Palace. To his credit, Olbermann can poke fun at himself: "There could still be enough idiots to elect Trump this November. Hell, I was stupid enough to move into one of his buildings." Olbermann is listing the condo for $3.9 million, significantly less than his purchase price in 2007. This morning, Olbermann tells the tale of Trump making some obnoxious jokes about former Trump condo owner Derek Jeter right after the great Yankees shortstop broke his ankle in 2012. He never quite explains why, if Trump was so obviously abominable, gratuitously cruel, and generally the living, breathing epitome of everything Olbermann can't stand for all those years, why he continued to live in the Trump Palace. Those Tax Increases Are Optional, Right? Over at Newsbusters, Daniel Garza points out that comedian George Lopez seems to think that Bernie Sanders' tax hikes have some sort of opt-out provision: BIG BOY, RADIO HOST: Where do you go now? Have you endorsed anyone? GEORGE LOPEZ: I endorsed Bernie Sanders. But really just to . . . I mean it's cool. I can't pay any more taxes, it's ridiculous. But, so, we'll figure it out. I really just did it to get the awareness out and have people vote. So George Lopez thinks he's overtaxed, and is supporting the guy who wants $15 TRILLION in tax increases. The argument in What's the Matter With Kansas? was that blue-collar, lower-income Americans kept voting for Republicans, in what author Thomas Frank saw as obvious and indisputable votes against their own economic interests. Of course, many Republicans think that their free-market, low-tax, low-regulation ideas help everyone by growing the economy, so voting for Republicans actually is in these voters' economic interests. And then here's Lopez, openly stating that his preferred candidate is going to act against his economic interests. Guess Who Else Thinks Sanders Doesn't Know What He's Talking About? Raise your hand if you ever thought you would see the day when Bernie Sanders' perspective on financial reform received a full-throated denunciation from . . . reliably liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: The easy slogan here is "Break up the big banks." It's obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises? Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on "shadow banks" like Lehman Brothers that weren't necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point. Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn't seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board. Krugman also points out that by declaring Hillary Clinton "unfit for office," he's making any compromise or unification down the road a lot more difficult. And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates -- based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises -- Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination. Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the "Bernie or bust" crowd, walking away if he can't pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he's doing? The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too? I know, I know -- it's pretty fascinating to watch Krugman complain about somebody else's "petulant self-righteousness." ADDENDA: Yesterday's piece, pointing out how Ted Cruz actually looks pretty competitive in a general election matchup against Hillary Clinton, has now been shared on social media more than 12,800 times. Thanks to everyone reading and sharing.  | 
Comments
Post a Comment