Apparently Gingrich went after Megan Kelly because she only reports on Donald Trump’s scandals, not the ideas behind the election.
Had Gingrich listened to himself back in the 90s and not gotten into controversies about semen-stained dresses he would have made a deal with Clinton the First to reform Social Security and Medicaid, stabilizing the U.S Government’s long term balance sheet.
Kelly does talk about lies, hypocrisies, contradictions, etc.
But not actually about policy.
That doesn’t make her much different from any other hack — including myself — minding the 24 hour news cycle and trying to keep up “churn” and post one post an hour (or thereabouts) while — how do I put this softly? — doing as little work as possible to accomplish this.
Scandal stories, according to Ace, are all about hope:
Policy reports aren’t boring, necessarily, but they do not offer the promise of a scandal story: the possibility of bringing that son-of-a-bitch down, finally, with one more damaging personal story, and one that doesn’t really take all that much effort to produce — or to digest.
By the way, this is almost entirely Fools Gold. Scandals do not bring people down. Hillary supporters will support Hillary not because she’s free of scandal, or that they believe her incessant self-serving lies, but because they draw a check from the government and they want to keep that check coming.
This is an important point. People might listen to scandal stories, but they cast their votes for other reasons.
Ace argues that anti-Trump Republicans at places like National Review are guilty of taking the easy way out by focusing on scandals too. Rather than argue policy they are essentially gossiping about Trump’s garish persona:
They did what the leftwing media does– which is to just ignore and embargo an opponent’s points you don’t have a glib answer for.
Instead, they worried themselves about the size of Alicia Machado’s dumper.
“Intellectuals,” it seems, like to talk about the same personal, groin-level shit everyone else does.
Ace of Spades is pro-Trump because he thinks a Clinton presidency will be worse. He demands that anti-Trump conservatives give an account for why they – effectively – prefer Clinton to Trump. He does not think Trump’s scandalous behavior counts as an acceptable excuse for not taking sides.
He’s right. For the record, I think Trump is a jackass and he does not appear to grasp what Presidents do. Asking me to vote for Trump or Clinton is like asking me if I prefer being shot or electrocuted. Sure, there are positives and negatives to each, but in the end it doesn’t much matter, does it.