On August 1, just after Donald Trump spent his post-DNC weekend waging an unusually-misguided jihad against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Stephen Colbert opened his Late Show by exploring one simple question: “Is there anyone Donald Trump won’t attack if they say something bad about him?” A series of brief experiments revealed that Trump would not attack “a kindly old lady” or “a kindergartner with an adorable speech impediment”, but was more than happy to take on a kitten who equated him with Hitler:
After Hillary Clinton became the first woman nominated for President by a major political party in the United States (one helluva baseball stat), a lot of ink was spilled in the matter of her outfit. To many, the fixation on the female nominee’s sartorial decision-making was clear evidence of sexism. For the media to give the same sort of attention to what a man chose to wear, they pointed out, would come off as absurd.
The moment I heard Bill Clinton tell the DNC that the Republican response to his wife has been “to create a cartoon alternative, and run against the cartoon,” I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt what Stephen Colbert was going to do with it. And indeed, when he went live that evening, Colbert immediately introduced his audience to Cartoon Donald Trump‘s Democratic opponent, Cartoon Hillary:
At yesterday’s Iowa Freedom Summit, Sarah Palin gave a speech that prompted Democratic National Committee communications director Mo Elleithee to issue a two-word response: “Thank you!”
Like attendees of the Democratic National Convention, even Mitt wants to see Obama re-elected:
Bibi’s speech at the UN is making headlines because of his spot-on impression of – depending on whom you ask – Wile E. Coyote, or Adolf S. Hitler [see above]. Drawing considerably less attention were his attempts to make amends with the Obama administration:
Two days ago President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear Iran cannot be contained… We thank and support President Obama for his position. I believe Democrats and Republicans alike share his position, and it is shared by leaders around the world … Israel is in discussions with the United States on this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.
The comments came the same day as a ‘leaked’ Israeli memo indicated that current sanctions against Iran are working, and that the approach might pay dividends and obviate the need for a pre-emptive strike on pre-nuclear Iran. Prior to Netanyahu’s speech, the New York Times speculated as to the source of the leak:
A month and a half ago, when I published Is Mitt Romney also an anti-Semite?, I heard about the title almost immediately from two friends.
The first was upset at the ‘shameless sensationalism’ latent (you can’t say blatant without saying latent*) in the post’s title. As sensationalism is admittedly a practice I have condemned in the past, I will note only that I thought the title was warranted by the fact that the piece addressed the frequency with which the label ‘anti-Semitic’ is thrown around – the headline was ironic, is what I’m getting at.
*the ‘e’ in latent renders the spelling formulation unworkable
The second was upset at what the headline implied:
Romney is many things, and of course you don’t like him, but anti-semite? That seems to be going a little far, don’t you think?
Considering that the goal of the piece was – as I said – to argue that when you call someone an anti-Semite you’re probably going a little too far, she was absolutely correct – which is why this time, I’m approaching the question from the opposite direction: is Mitt Romney ‘a friend to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel’? You’ll see the source of that formulation shortly, but first, let’s take a look at the poll – allegedly showing that Jews have abandoned Obama in droves – that prompted this post: