This week’s Liberal Media Scream highlights the latest example of the conventional liberal media’s view that all Republicans are deplorable and, thus, dismissible.
MSNBC “historian” Jon Meacham, an author and former Newsweek Washington bureau chief, wrote off the large and historically diverse collection of Republican presidential candidates as insurrectionists and seditionists because all have been supportive at times of former President Donald Trump.
WILL HURD’S ‘POINTLESS’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN ONLY HELPS EX-PRESIDENT
“We have a pretty clear choice in this political season. We can choose a constitutionalist, a party that has been pretty faithful to the Constitution, which is the party of the incumbent president, or we can favor a party that has been shockingly but persistently supportive of an insurrectionist or a seditionist,” he said on Friday’s Morning Joe show.
“It’s not simple, but it is straightforward. That’s the choice before the country,” said Meacham, who punctuated his analysis with declarations of “right?!”
From Friday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: We were talking about the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court who, again, out of control, running roughshod over the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans. And now, we have this president, again, unprecedented, but here we are moving towards, I believe, I think, the most serious charges and the one that I think historians are going to be grappling with long after we are all gone. That is a president charged with conspiracy to commit sedition against the United States of America.
JON MEACHAM: You’re right, historians will be wrestling with it as we all do all the time. I think citizens have to wrestle with it now, right? This is, it’s so central, and I just really believe that we have a pretty clear choice in this political season. We can choose a constitutionalist, a party that has been pretty faithful to the Constitution, which is the party of the incumbent president, or we can favor a party that has been shockingly but persistently supportive of an insurrectionist or a seditionist.
That’s not a sentence we would have said about Eisenhower and Stevenson, right? That was not something that a lot of people grew up with. But it’s pretty vital. And yet that’s the question: Is any policy so important that you would want to favor someone that you think is a vehicle for that policy, even if they don’t and have self-evidently tried to trash the Constitution of the United States? And we could go on, but that’s really kind of it. You know, it’s pretty basic. Do you want a constitutionalist or an insurrectionist?
SEE THE LATEST POLITICAL NEWS AND BUZZ FROM WASHINGTON SECRETS
Then we get into the, ‘But, but, but, taxes and judges.’ If we don’t have a Constitution, taxes and judges aren’t going to matter at all. That’s where we are, remarkably, right now. Again, we could go on, but I think it’s a fundamental question. People often say, you know, it’s simple. It’s not simple, but it is straightforward. That’s the choice before the country.
Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Meacham, in all his haughty glory, sees it as his role to declare every candidate in one party illegitimate presidential contenders because most of them refrain from denouncing the one candidate he really hates. Yet Meacham and Scarborough wonder why conservatives don’t heed their advice when they show such disdain for the choices made by those who don’t share their left-wing worldview.”
Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.
