Uncategorized

The chronicles of Cotton

Tom Cotton is the very conservative junior senator from Arkansas, which should guarantee him a certain degree of anonymity, which he has overcome by being 1) very conservative, and 2) very articulate.

Sen. Tom Cotton (left) and ABC’s Jonathan Karl have a dustup

Maybe not too much of a surprise from a man who got both his undergraduate and law degree from Harvard. After which, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, where he became a paratrooper, and a Ranger, and served in combat deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I saw him have it out Sunday morning with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who is a pretty good reporter, but who came across as an explainer for Kamala Harris.

The two battled like heavyweights in the ring, the nut being this: Cotton said Harris is an unrepentant uber liberal with a long list of far Left positions. (I listed most of them in this piece: ) Karl said she had retracted those positions, Cotton said she had not.

Here’s the truth: Through various comms flacks, Harris has stepped back from some of the positions — fracking, for instance. But the repositioning has not come from Harris herself, and it must. She’s got to say she now would not ban fracking, she now must say she’s not getting rid of private health insurance, she must now say that illegally entering the nation is unlawful and unacceptable. Until she says it, the denials don’t count.

I was listening to WPHT/1210-AM Monday morning when I heard a replay of the Cotton/Karl debate, with the right-wing hosts, of course, siding with Cotton. Well, so am I, but that is not my default. As a middlest, I try not be fair to both sides.

The hosts also told me Donald J. Trump was saying he might skip the scheduled Presidential debate on ABC in protest of the “unfair” treatment.

Well, that’s probably nothing more than his usual bullshit, and, if not, if he drops out, it would give the Democrats permission to justifiably accuse Trump of being “afraid” to debate Harris. Not a good look for him. (Later in the day it was reported both sides were quibbling over terms of the debate.)

Let me digress for a moment. Or, digress again.

Cotton was an incidental actor in a play produced by The New York Times back in 2020, when the editor of the opinion page was forced out for having the unmitigated gall to publish an op-ed by Cotton that many readers, and Times staff did not like. The essay called for troops to be used against rioters. This was a few months after the riots in 140 cities following George Floyd’s murder, which cost $1-2 billion, with hundreds of injuries. I have a feeling many Americans agreed with Cotton.

It was an opinion piece. Agree, disagree, whatever. Not at the Times.

To me, the most disturbing part was the rebellion by Times staffers, who enjoy the protection of the First Amendment themselves, but would deny it to others. Disagreeable speech is the speech that needs protecting, according to our Founders.

But not in the woke Times newsrooms. And I have seen the intrusion of political and social views altering news judgment in other newsrooms. And that intrusion builds serious mistrust among the many millions who don’t think the way they do. Contrary views must have a place at the table.

Even when those views are screamingly  stupid, like the “third voice” on Monday’s WPHT show, someone filling in for Greg Stocker. (I texted an Audacy exec to ask who it was, but got no answer. It was a male who sounded like afternoon host Rich Zeoli.)

Whoever it was, taking a caroom off Monday being the third anniversary of the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, rightfully complained about a recent Taliban parade of U.S. weapons disgracefully left behind. Not content to stick to good argument, and facts, he then added a shot against the “dirty, filthy” media who don’t care about about the horrors Afghan women face.

He was alleging some kind of a Leftist coverup? Like the MainStream Media is in cahoots with the Taliban? Like the story of the Afghan abuse has not been reported?

All it took was 15 seconds on Google for me to find many stories condemning the Taliban’s treatment of women — CNN, AP, BBC, Times, Washington Post, Toronto Star, U.S. News & World Report, and so on.

So where did the politicized radio grievance merchant get his facts?

From out his backside. Sheer laziness and partisanship. Yet even this jerk should be heard.

And then other jerks, like me, get to call him out.

Stu Bykofsky

Recent Posts

Feds bash Philly schools for enabling anti-Semitism

I once wrote, with sincerity, that Philadelphians divide their time between bragging about Philly, and…

5 hours ago

Inquirer scoreboard: Fails on objectivity, again

As part of my continuing scoreboard on Inquirer corruption of journalist norms, the Thursday edition…

2 days ago

Sixers Arena: Lots of leadership missing, and that’s no accident

[This was published in the Inquirer on Thursday, Dec, 12. The subject is the Sixers…

6 days ago

Nuclear war: Making it thinkable

Not many things scare the crap out of me, including the threat of nuclear war.…

1 week ago

Inquirer scoreboard: It keeps pushing Open Borders

God knows I don’t want to be a noodge about it, but as long as…

2 weeks ago

The Ivy Leaguer and the Marine: Neither is a hero

By now you have either seen or heard of the online blockheads who are lionizing,…

2 weeks ago