Ace of Spades on Scandal

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.

Anyway, Ace of Spades agrees with Gingrich:

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.





  1. Dirty laundry sells. That’s sort of what the media exists for, giving the consumer what they want. We want scandal, crime, and war. Nobody wants to hear the good news, it just doesn’t sell, it doesn’t get us all riled up.

    I read a good one the other day, a bit desperate if you ask me, but apparently one of trump`s kids was seen in a burger place, drinking lemonade out of one of their free water cups. Dozens of comments, tweets, outrage. I was quite impressed really, that’s so stupid, it takes some real talent to turn it into six paragraph story, but they did it.

  2. I don’t find Megyn Kelly’s reporting tawdry. Did you watch the video? Gingrich lost the plot. There were 101 answers he could have given that wouldn’t have made him look stupid. Time and again he went with very odd choices for answers:

    1. I don’t want to come down hard on Kelly, she is fine as reporters go, but AoS is correct insofar as it is easy to report on scandal as a substitute for real news.
      It is hard to quantify scandal too: what is more scandalous, WikiLeaks emails from Clinton aides suggesting that Clinton knowingly broke the law, or audio of Trump talking like a pig? Well, the former, but it has less impact.

      1. The question is, was she really focusing on scandals? I had the impression she was doing a good job of touching on all relevant issues.
        The way you’re still talking about Clinton “knowingly breaking the law” is odd. You’re saying it as if this is a law of exceptional importance- when in reality this could be likened to Janet Jackson showing a bit of nipple. As a judge would point out, you cannot prove damages. No damages, no compensation.

      2. Army and intelligence officers are routinely prosecuted for mishandling documents. America should have one set of laws for low ranking officials and another set of laws for high ranking ones?

      3. One presumes judges take into account the content of the documents in question. The idea that any document marked classified is of importance is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that if there was a shred of evidence of anything serious having been leaked we’d all know about it by now and she’s be out of the race.

      4. When it comes to cybersecurity the fact you are leaving yourself open to attack is pretty bad. If I were to routinely leave my company server open to hacking, or worse, do what Clinton did and work on an unsecured home computer precisely so that the company could not exercise oversight, I’d be fired. And why does my company have those rules? Because it is a requirement for handling government information. Saying that the information wasn’t important or that there is no proof of me being hacked wouldn’t save my job.
        Two sets of rules, one set for powerful people, another for everyone else.

    2. Some predictions:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: