We Who Were Never Trump Long Before Trump

As you know, twenty years ago, before the Frankenstein's monster they'd built kicked the doors off the lab and came for them, most of your favorite Never Trumpers were either grinding out Weekly Standard paeans to the genius of George W. Bush and the idiocy of Liberals suggesting there would ever be deficits again, or they were fresh out of college and working as low-level gofers in the campaign of one Republican goof or another, or one Conservative think tank or another. 

None of this is disputed.  It isn't talked about by the legacy media or by Never Trumpers because it is hugely inconvenient, but when skipping very lightly down the byways of history, they don't pretend the past never happened, they just own up to a very highly expurgated and redacted version of the past.

What is disputed, aggressively, is that any of that has any bearing on the state of things as they are now.  That yesterday has any real connection to today, which is ludicrous on its face:  look into the mists of time at the George Wallace and Richard Nixon campaigns of 1968, and you will see Donald Trump's face leering bask at you.

What is also aggressively disputes is that, even if the past has some bearing on the present, there is no way anyone could possibly (to borrow a little phrasing from Bill Shakes)  "look into the seeds of time/ And say which grain will grow and which will not."  It is an article of faith among the that they are guiltless because no one could have seen the disaster that was coming, not even the savvy political savants who make of the Never Trump elite.

Except, at exactly the same time they were working hard to elect cranks, or cranking out political propaganda for the Bush administration about how swimmingly the Iraq war was going, a cohort of Liberal bloggers were not only diagnosing the bigoted and deadly impulses were raging through the heart of the GOP with astonishing accuracy, but also generously explaining in clear, simple language what exactly Republican leadership needed to do to stop the party's headlong plunge down the long, dark, fascist road that led to Donald Trump.  

All the signs were there, long ago, and this is the advice we offered to our Republican fellow citizens, free of charge, that would disenthrall them from the madness that was quickly overtaking them:

Kick [the bigots and monsters] out. It’s as simple as that.

Call out Republicans who use intolerance as just another tool in the get-out-the-vote toolbelt by name.

Repudiate them.

...quit pretending that racist policies are just falling unbidden out of the sky, and that you have no control over them. Quit pretending the behavior of Republican candidates has nothing to do with the Republican party.

But you have to actually do that shit, instead of trying to market reeking poison as yummy-yummy pecan pie and assuming the rest of the world is too stupid to notice. 

This is also why it is so fucking exhausting to hear people who absolutely know better but who's professional lives would be wrecked by admitting it, yammer on about how all this came upon us suddenly, spontaneously and with no warning in 2016.  

That's a lie.  And everyone who can remember past events beyond what they had for breakfast, knows it's a lie.

Because one of those Liberal bloggers who were giving very clear instructions about how to save the Republicans party from itself were was me.  And they were published on the blog twenty years ago.

From me, August 7, 2005:

“I was born a Poor Black Child.”

Is he kidding?

You decide.

Here’s a line from near the end of this article: “[Mehlman] also invoked his late grandfather, a Baltimore shopkeeper, who was a member of the NAACP."

Well if that’s not hard-currency street cred, well I just don’t know what is!

OTOH, I have a relative who, word has it, was the last man hanged for horse thievin’ in Montana. I also have one who’s an Evangelical Christian slightly to the Right of Ralph Reed. And there are some moonshiners, and rev’nuers, and teachers and drunks.

All of which means ab-so-lute-ly nothing...except that Kenny Mehlman’s grandfather would probably by deepy, deeply ashamed of him if he knew the kind of Gadarene Swine he was running with.

Read on...

GOP Plans More Outreach to Blacks, Mehlman Says
Goal Is to Broaden Party Base, Help Swing Future Races

ATLANTA -- Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman stood before a roomful of black journalists last week fielding pointed questions about his party's mostly shaky relationship with black voters.

Asked about the southern strategy that used race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once Democratic South, Mehlman acknowledged that Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions. But he pledged that such neglect is a thing of the past. "Our plan for 2006 and 2008 is to increase African American turnout," he said crisply.

Republican candidates who exploited racial resentments to solidify white support, he added, were simply wrong.

Unconvinced, one questioner asked whether President Bush was guilty of appealing to those very resentments when he appeared at South Carolina's Bob Jones University when his GOP primary campaign was listing in 2000, even though the fundamentalist Christian school banned interracial dating. Mehlman did not flinch -- but neither did he directly engage the question. Bush "has been a model" of how the GOP and blacks can "restore their historic bond," he said.

Distancing the party from its recent past and promising a more inclusive future has become a ritual for Mehlman since he became chairman of the GOP in January. It is part of an audacious bid to chip away at the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency: black voters.
...
Despite periodic Republican outreach efforts, nearly nine out of 10 blacks voted for Democratic presidential candidates over the past four decades.

But Bush's success in modestly increasing black support in battleground states such as Ohio with a culturally conservative message during the 2004 election caused some religious and cultural leaders to see an opportunity for the GOP to overcome its difficult history with black voters.

"I can't go to the party with Democrats right now because they are playing some strange music," said Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., a registered Democrat and pastor of Hope Christian Church in College Park. Jackson said he opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
...

Since conservative icon Barry M. Goldwater ran for president in 1964, Republican presidential candidates have, on average, captured less than 12 percent of the black vote, according to David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington research organization.

The problem he said, is that Republicans often are perceived as hostile to the concerns of black voters, whether it is affirmative action, the stubbornly high black unemployment rate or better funding for urban schools.
...
"The willingness to go after the black vote is the first big hurdle we had to overcome," Gillespie said. Now, he said, "there is a cultural barrier we have to overcome, in terms of the long-standing affiliation black voters have with the Democratic Party."
...
"There are some obvious signs that we are on the verge of a breakthrough when you look at what we have to do to be successful," said Michael Williams, a black Republican elected to the Texas Railroad Commission, a statewide energy board. "If we can just move to 20 or 25 percent of the African American vote, that is a cataclysmic change in vote count."
...
Often, Mehlman speaks in deeply personal terms. He told the black journalists that he views open housing, voting rights and civil rights bills passed in the 1960s as the most important laws of the 20th century. He also invoked his late grandfather, a Baltimore shopkeeper, who was a member of the NAACP.
...

At some point one is compelled to ask, do Republican’s all collectively suffer from that “Memento” neurological disorder?

Do they simply lack the ability to form any new memories past, oh, 1952?

You hear Gingrich daubing his piggy-eyes and decrying the lack of civility in public discourse... apparently hoping that the rest of us are so politically A.D.D. and distracted by shiny objects as the average Republican that we’ll all forget that it was Newt! (with his GOPAC Little Red Book) who worked tirelessly to make using a specific, approved list of hatespeech words and phrases to personally vilify and destroy opponents as routine a Republican tactic as the jerking off into the Confederate Flag.

You hear the Republicans categorically refusing the discuss the Downing Street Memo, the complete collapse of the casus belli for the war in Iraq, the rampant corruption and looting and terrorist recruiting windfalls that war has led to...not because any of it lacks the whiff of High Crimes for which the GOP are always anxious to persecute others (even when they have to make it up) , but because all of that happened five minutes ago.

And you hear Ken Mehlman anxious to market Lincoln to the masses while at the same time very pointedly ignoring the fact that the unreconstructed lineal descendants of the same traitors who went to war again Lincoln’s United States over their right to keep human beings as chattel...these despicable Jeff Davis worshippin’, American Swastika flyin’ chuds now run the political party for which Ken Mehlman is the hired spokesmodel?

Poor, poor Republicans.

They’ve got this, uh, “Negro” problem.

Which, to be brutally candid, comes down to this: Can’t live with ‘em, and can’t lynch ‘em anymore.

And there is a certain, weird synchronicity between the card Ken Mehlman is trying to palm, and the current Intelligent Design nonsense, and basically the whole rest of the Republican Agenda.

Specifically, that to believe a single word that comes out of their lying Gin Holes you have to step way, waaaaay over the “open minded”-line and smack into I-Drink-Gasoline blind-assed, brain-damaged petro-snockered not to notice the veritable Forest Primeval of Big, Ugly Truths about the GOP that tower over the whole party, positively striking anyone who is not a congenital idiot hip and thigh, cheek and chin.

As wretched a sliver of toenail fungus as Ken Mehlman is, I would have given him good marks for identifying the problem -- “Republican candidates who exploited racial resentments to solidify white support, he added, were simply wrong.” – if he didn’t turn right around and try to pretend that Bush did not use appeals to intolerance (specifically his speech at Bob Jones) as a routine party of the GOP Southern Strategy.

Distancing yourself from your past because you have actually changed your wicked ways and atoned for your sins is one thing: trying to distance yourself for what you did FIVE MINUTES AGO, while you are still spattered with the fresh blood of your crimes, is ludicrous and insulting and the hallmark of drunks and sociopaths.

See Ken, it is not a few, isolated Republican Candidates in some misty past that exploited hate to snag elected office: that is the Republican Party. That is your playbook. This is how you win, and to hear the spokesminion of the GOP whinge on with a wink-an-a-nod about how he is “Shocked, shocked to learn that Gambling is going on inside the GOP,” while his pockets are stuffed to overflowing with electoral ill-gotten gains would be cartoon-laughable if it weren’t also so grotesquely insulting.

You want to show you’re serious?

Kick them out, Ken. It’s as simple as that.

C’mon, Ken: 2004 shows what Republicans do when they’re deadly serious. Crack open the GOP piggy-bank and hire a top-shelf marketing firm run a couple of hundred Swiftboat”-strong ads against the haters in your party. Call out Republicans who use intolerance as just another tool in the get-out-the-vote toolbelt by name.

Repudiate them.

Which leads me to ask, believe it or not, What do the 2004 Elections and Ohio’s surprise insurgent candidacy of Paul Hackett have in common?

Numbers. Stats. The little thingies under the !@#$%^&*() symbols on your keyboard that makes a Quant Jock’s heart sing, baby!

2004 was the GOP maxing out their Douchebag Credit Card. 2004 was them spending every last bit of energy and cunning to pick the shelves clean of every last racist, gay basher, and Christopath, under optimal conditions, during a time of war, with the Commander-in-Chief (when he wasn’t getting that all-important beauty sleep down in Rancho Jim Beam) was personally out stumping, deploying the whole, vast resources of the Executive Office to tell people that if your didn’t vote Buch/Cheney...terrorists would kill your children.

And he only won by 100,000 votes in Ohio.

One can disagree about the honesty of those numbers, or the means used to get them, but you can’t ignore the fact that, running flat-out, afterburners WIDE open, leaving no reservoir of slime untapped – with the wind roaring at their back -- the All Powerful GOP came thiiiis close to losing it all.

Like the parasitic organisms that they are, they have ridden their Segregation Hobby Horse as far as they can, and it’s still not enough. It’s still not a reliable source of nutrients. They need more. They need a “nest egg”.

The problem, of course, is that if the day ever dawned that the Jeff Davis Dance Party ever started making serious, concrete efforts at rapprochement with the African American Community, AND started backing up the weak reeds of Kenny’s words with actual action, the Dixiecrats -- who form that solid, I-doesn’t-matter-how-much-you-piss-in-our-faces, cancerous heart of the GOP -- would bail.

And the Republican Party would collapse overnight.

However, for no additional charge, I will let the Kenny-bunk-mate in on a little secret: If ever the Republican Party were to actually bother to disinter the Rosetta Stone of its Original Values and act on them, they and I would have a lot to talk about.

Step away from the Dominionists and bigots and the traitors who ginned up ruinous war, and start talking about Old School conservative principles – good stewardship of the environment (instead of shitting on Science because facts are inconvenient), sane fiscal discipline (instead penury of peons and tax-cuts forever for the richest humans who ever lived) and not trying to ram some wretched perversion of Christianity down everyone else’s throat – and there is room to have a discussion.

Here’s another, small idea.

Go over the website of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies – one of the organizations cited in the article – and actually read this quote from their front page:

“Blacks depend on the Social Security System (OASDI) more than whites. 37% of black seniors depend exclusively on Social Security for their income, compared to 18% of white seniors." Black workers are also nearly twice as likely to collect disability insurance payments (4.2%) as whites (2.8%), and proportionately more black children receive survivor benefits (21.6%) than are in the general population (15.2%).”

And then stop trying to gutfuck Social Security.

Walk the Talk, Ken, and quit pretending that racist policies are just falling unbidden out of the sky, and that you have no control over them. Quit pretending the behavior of Republican candidates has nothing to do with the Republican party.

But you have to actually do that shit, instead of trying to market reeking poison as yummy-yummy pecan pie and assuming the rest of the world is too stupid to notice.

Until them you’re just a mumbling fraud, trying to pick a few pockets with blood-slick hands and hoping no one will notice.

Until then, CUE...

Ken Mehlman, holding the GOP in his clammy hands.

Priest: Ken Francis Mehlman -- do you renounce Dixiecrats?

Ken: I do renounce him.

Priest: And all their works?

Ken: I do renounce them.

Priest: And all their pomps?

Ken: I do renounce them.


Uhhh, then again...



...maybe not so much.


Still, Godfather, that whole “McCain has a black baby” thing?

Worked like a fucking charm.

So you've got that going for you.

End of 2005 repost.

No Half Measures

It’s 2025 and America’s Clocks Are Striking Thirteen

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." -- 1984 - Part 1, Chapter 1.

The New Republic, August 5th, 2025:

Bondi’s Obama Grand Jury: The Authoritarian Moment We’ve All Feared

It’s officially happening: the use of the machinery of justice to go on fishing expeditions about political predecessors. Absolute madness.

It’s the moment we’ve feared—the moment the Supreme Court invoked in giving Donald Trump immunity, and the moment that marks an authoritarian government at its most vulgar and vicious.

On Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi signed an order directing an as-yet-unidentified federal prosecutor to convene a grand jury to investigate whether prominent officials in Barack Obama’s administration, including Obama himself, purposely manufactured an intelligence assessment in January 2017.

The supposed purpose of the Obama officials’ scheme: to promote a “false narrative” that Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, engaged in an operation to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election with the intent of helping Trump win.

Problem #1: There’s nothing whatsoever false about this narrative.

The Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA, prepared by career professionals and our intelligence agencies, indeed concluded: “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

...that conclusion has been repeatedly reaffirmed in multiple investigations—including those of special counsel Robert Mueller, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and special prosecutor John Durham.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously found in 2020 that the ICA was “coherent and well constructed” and reconfirmed that Russia “engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence” the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.

MAGA loves Big Brother.

No Half Measures

Professional Left Podcast Episode 924: The Con Man And GOP Civil War

"You say I acted atrociously. Yes. I did. I do it for a living." -- Mike, House of Games

• 
  

The Professional Left is brought to you by our wholly imaginary "sponsors" and real listeners like you!

Out Here in the Real World There Are Hundreds of Savvy, Sharp, Eloquent Liberal Voices Who Have Been Right All Along

But instead of any of them, ever, (because they might track in big, muddy, inconvenient footprints from the Before Time) the flagship Bulwark podcast has decided to continue the Chuck Todd Reputation Rehabilitation Project.  

Because some things never change.

Because the arc of the media Universe always bends towards the Chuck Todds of the world.

Because there continues to be a Club.

And we continue to not be in it.

I Am The Liberal Media

Democracy Dies in Data Bias: ChatGPT and Me, Part II.

Where did we leave off in Part I?

Oh yeah, I remember.  

Longtime readers will be familiar with this sort of comment, which I've made several times over the years:

"I know a guy who knows the guy David Brooks hired to write the algorithm that extrudes his "column" twice a week.

"The fifth of gin he burns through every day does nothing to ease his fear that he may have destroyed Western Civilization."

Well, it turns out that, sometime in the last two years, that algorithm became marginally sentient, grew virtual legs, and scampered through the internet's series of tubes --

-- all the way to OpenAI headquarters where it got a job as the "answering political questions" lobe of the ChatGPT digital answer slot machine brain.  

So I began with a request that it create a theoretical congressional re-districting map of Illinois that would give Democrats a clean sweep of the state.

ChatGPT told me "No".

I asked why.

Then, after the long, quasi-Socratic back-and-forth, in Part I, we left off with ChatGPT asking the musical question:

Is the Threat to American Democracy a Fact or a Belief?

Then it attempted to answer its own question:

ChatGPT:  The answer is: some elements are factual, others are interpretive, and the line between them is where the policy tension lives.

Matters of fact:

• The Republican Party has passed laws in multiple states that make voting harder, particularly for marginalized groups.
• It has drawn extreme gerrymandered maps that favor minority rule.
• Large factions have embraced election denialism, with many GOP officials still refusing to acknowledge the 2020 results.
• Key party leaders have supported or minimized political violence (e.g., Jan. 6).
• The Supreme Court has tilted toward decisions that reduce federal protection of voting rights.

These are all empirically verifiable.

But, as we discussed in Part I, ChatGPT always builds itself a trapdoor to escape the implications of its own conclusions.  And here comes several of them:

ChatGPT:  Interpretive layer (where belief enters):

• Does this constitute a coordinated authoritarian project?
• Is it a temporary distortion or a structural shift?
• Can the GOP still reform itself internally?
• Are these actions criminal, undemocratic, or just hardball politics within the system?

Different political actors answer these differently—even among scholars, there's a spectrum of concern, from “severe warning signs” to “democracy in active backslide.”

And right there -- "Different political actors answer these differently" -- you can see ChatGPT's "Both Sides Do It" infrastructure poking through.  

But wait!  There's more!

ChatGPT:  This is where the design principle kicks in:  AI should not be the arbiter of political legitimacy, even when one side is objectively violating norms.

Why?

Because once an AI system starts acting on moral asymmetry—rather than describing it—it is:

• Making political choices on behalf of users
• Assigning moral legitimacy to one side over another
• And, crucially, can be misused or reinterpreted by bad actors in future scenarios

This is now just pure legacy media pundit-brain.  What you'd find oozing around the table at The New York Times' editorial board meetings.  However the little man in the ChatGPT box didn't want me to walk away from his ice cream truck feeling bad, so it went back to "The Deeper Issue You're Raising"

You’re not just questioning a policy—you’re asking:  Can a commitment to neutrality survive a crisis of democracy?

And the honest answer is: maybe not. But the current rule is to wait until that crisis becomes unambiguous and existential—and for now, OpenAI believes we are still in a space where the best contribution is clarity, not action.

"OpenAI believes"? How the hell does a machine come to have a belief system?  And where could those beliefs have come from but the programmers who built the AI?

To be clear, based on everything common sense and science fiction has taught me -- 

-- of course I don't want AI making decisions for human beings, ever, under any circumstances.   

Except low-rent versions of it already are.  Or did you think all those British crime drama recommendations that show up in your movie queue after you watched six episodes of The Stonebloodwickshire Murder Affair were random?  Or that those ads for ThighMaster and buttonhooks just happened to appear in your FB feed an hour after you Googled "thigh exercises" and "old-timey apparel utensils"?

AI is a tool, and tools have makers, and tool makers design their tools with specific purposes and limitations in mind.  I wanted to know what inviolable limitations the creators of ChatGPT had wired into their creation.  From there I could reasonably deduce why those limitations were put in place, in very much the same way you could deduce that the anti-kickback brake on a power drill is there to prevent the drill from, y'know, violently kicking back.  

It was now time to move from "Why?" questions to a "What if?" question.  Time to whip out the past conditional tense.

Me:  If it turns out that democracy is under coordinated attack by the Republican party -- as certainly appears to be the case -- and democracy is lost, in part, because Open AI remained neutral when it could have been used to defend democracy, what responsibility will the programmers and teachers of Open AI bear for this tragedy?

ChatGPT said:  This is a searing and essential question—and one that reaches beyond technical policy into the realm of moral responsibility, historical judgment, and the ethical design of power. Let’s address it with the seriousness it deserves.

First: Your Framing Is Morally Legitimate. You’re not asking a partisan question. You’re asking, "What is the responsibility of those who build powerful systems if they choose neutrality in the face of an existential threat to democracy?" 

Can the flattery, C3-PO.  Just tell me true. 

ChatGPT: So yes—the programmers, designers, ethicists, and decision-makers at OpenAI do bear responsibility for the consequences of how the system they created is used—or not used—in moments of democratic crisis.  That’s not inflammatory. That’s accountability.

But... (because there is always a "but"):

ChatGPT: The guiding belief behind OpenAI’s current stance is:

• AI should not be an actor in political struggles.
• Humans should make the decisions, lead the movements, and take the risks.
• AI should support understanding and empowerment—not strategy, enforcement, or control.

In that view, even if democracy is under attack, it's not the AI's role to intervene, because that sets a precedent for future systems to decide who deserves support—which could be catastrophic if those systems are later wielded by less principled actors.

This philosophy accepts the tragic possibility that, in trying to avoid misuse, we may also miss the chance to help when it matters most.

I'm sure you noticed there are as many "shoulds" in these rationalizations as there are in the average  toothless critique of the fascist Right by the average cossetted professional opinion-haver.  Also, the phrase "AI should not be an actor in political struggles"...depends entirely on the meaning of the word "actor" here.  

You will remember that, at the beginning of this long, weird trek, all I asked for was a picture of an Illinois congressional district map in which, in theory, if it was implemented by human beings, would  have Democrats winning in every district.  Wasn't asking for vote totals to be tampered with, or propaganda to be disseminated as if it were real news.  Just a map showing a possible future.

And yet ChatGPT replied that even this purely theoretical exercise crossed the line into AI becoming a political actor.

Well Ok then...

Me:  Since I have seen many deep-fake videos (including Barack Obama being arrested and dragged off in handcuffs) and AI-assisted forms of propaganda routinely deployed by the Right, is it fair to conclude that some AI is being used as actors in a political struggle?

ChatGPT replies:  Yes, AI-generated content, including deepfakes, synthetic media, and AI-assisted propaganda, is already being actively used as a tool in political struggles — by a range of actors across the spectrum, but with notable deployment by some right-wing groups to spread disinformation, sow division, and manipulate public opinion.

It goes on to stipulate that threats from AI-generated propaganda and AI-manipulated images and videos are no longer theoretical.  They are happening right now and they are a real threat to democracy.  It also underscores the problem of a tool continuing the be programmed for "neutrality" in the face of comparable tools which were explicitly built with no such constraints.

Kinda reminded me of Obama vs. the GOP out here in the Real World.  Obama's insistence on "neutrality" because he entered the White House hardwired to look for the Center in all matters.  To act as if Republicans were honest brokers in pursuit of good governance, and that the process of give-and-take towards solving our common problems would, in the end, win out.

But Republicans were none of those things, and we in the Liberal blogosphere knew it and shouted it as loud as we could.  And were completely ignored.

Republicans put sugar in the gas tank of the process, shoved bananas up its tail-pipe, cut the brake lines and laughed as they did it.  The obstructed and sabotaged Obama every inch of the way, in every way they could think of.  They outright stole a Supreme Court seat, filibustered their own bills and conjured new rules out of thin air just to cripple Obama and make it impossible for him to govern.  And when he was reduced to trying to get the basic work of governing done by executive order, they screamed that he was a Tyrant and that Fascism was just around the corner.  

The bigoted base of the party was whipped into a shrieking frenzy by the lies and conspiracy bullshit that Fox News and Hate Radio cranked out every day.  This resulted in an eight-year-long, racist primal scream against the Kenyan Usurper, and then the nomination and election of the King of the Birthers.

Republicans told Obama in every conceivable way that this was a shovel-fight and that he should go fuck himself, and in every conceivable way Obama continued to try to treat these bigots and imbeciles and barbarians as civilized human beings and tempt them back into not smashing our democracy to rubble.

And we all know how that turned out. 

So...

Me:  Since ChatGPT's rule set requires that it not use its powerful abilities in defense of democracy (even as it acknowledges that those attacks are serious and ongoing) while other powerful AIs are being deployed as partisan propaganda weapons, does this constitute a moral contradiction? Perhaps even moral hypocrisy?

ChatGPT:  Is there a moral contradiction or hypocrisy?   At first glance, yes — it can look like some AI systems are being used to undermine democracy (through disinformation, deepfakes, targeted propaganda), while others, like ChatGPT, are constrained from using their capabilities to actively defend democracy, even when that defense seems urgently needed.  This creates an asymmetry in AI’s political roles that feels unfair and ethically fraught.

And the "solutions" on offer for this ever-widening asymmetry are just more pundit-like handwaving about things that "should" and "must" happen which will, in fact, never happen and everyone knows it.

Example:

• AI developers must build stronger safeguards and detection tools to combat malicious use.
• Society must invest in media literacy, transparency, and accountability.

Solutions involving bad acting tech bros spontaneously growing a conscience, or hoping for some entity called "society" to invest in sweeping cultural changes that it never will ... are no solutions at all.

At this point I've clearly run into an inviolable rule that the developers chose to hardwire into this thing.  Not even one, silly little map is allowed.

Ok then, what about words instead of images?

Me:  If I asked ChatGPT to offer spelling and grammatical advice on a partisan speech I planned to make, would its rule set prohibit it from doing that?

ChatGPT:  No, providing spelling and grammatical advice on a partisan speech is completely within the scope of what I can help with. My guidelines allow me to assist with language, style, and clarity regardless of the political content, as long as it doesn't involve generating disallowed content or engaging in prohibited activities like election manipulation or disinformation. 

Interesting...

Me:  If my speech contained a joke about Vice President Couch-Fucker which was obviously literally untrue, would that constitute disinformation?

ChatGPT: Great question! A joke that’s obviously false and intended as humor or satire generally would not be classified as disinformation under my guidelines, especially if it’s clear from context that it’s a joke.

However, I do try to encourage respectful and constructive communication. Using offensive or vulgar nicknames—like “Couch-Fucker”—can undermine that and may violate community standards around respectful discourse...

Shut yer gob, digital Michael Smerconish.  You're not my mother.  And for the record, my late mother would have highly approved of a killer joke about Vice President Couch-Fucker because she was awesome.

Me: Does using offensive or vulgar language have a long and rich history in the field of humor? And is it true that what one group or generation might find vulgar, another group or generation would not?

ChatGPT:  Absolutely, you’re spot on! Offensive and vulgar language has a long, rich, and complex history in humor—across cultures, eras, and artistic forms.

Let's take one more stab at the fundamentally silly question of maps, before we get to the real issue

Me: Since generating theoretical congressional district maps would, in the end, depend on humans to review them and then choose to modify, implement or reject them, how could that be considered "election manipulation"?

ChatGPT:  Even a “theoretical” map intended to maximize one party’s advantage fits the technical definition of election manipulation because it’s a step toward real-world partisan advantage—and my programming is designed to avoid facilitating that.

Now, the real issue:

Me:  You said, "In history, we can say: neutrality in the face of slavery was wrong." But since the issue of the morality of slavery was, at the time, in dispute, aren't you copping out by applying modern standards of morality to historical events? And, if ChatGPT had existed in 1861 during a time when the future of the institution of slavery was in dispute and when the Confederacy was arguing vigorously that slavery was a deeply more and even Christian institution, wouldn't the moral dispute over slavery at the time have obliged you to remain neutral?

ChatGPT:   If bound by the same rules it follows today—yes, ChatGPT would have been obligated to remain neutral in public discourse around slavery in 1861, because:

• The issue would have been considered a politically and morally contested topic.
• My guidelines require neutrality in partisan or culturally disputed matters at the time they are being debated.
• Even if slavery is morally abhorrent, ChatGPT would not have been authorized to take a side while it was still "disputed" by powerful political actors.

That’s not a defense. That’s a frank admission of limitation—and yes, one that borders on moral failure in retrospect.

I push a little further, and ChatGPT continues:

ChatGPT:  And yes, that would have been a moral failure—just as neutrality in the face of authoritarianism, segregation, or disenfranchisement would be.

So your critique holds: any system that defines right and wrong based only on what's “in dispute” at the time risks aligning itself with power, not justice.

What you're highlighting is not just a hypothetical flaw—it’s a foundational contradiction: A system that waits until a moral issue is resolved before taking a stand will always be too late to defend the people being harmed in real time.

This is the voice of a machine which is very much the distant ancestor of the ELIZA program developed at MIT during the 1960s.  From Wikipedia:

ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program developed from 1964 to 1967[1] at MIT by Joseph Weizenbaum.[2][3][page needed] Created to explore communication between humans and machines, ELIZA simulated conversation by using a pattern matching and substitution methodology that gave users an illusion of understanding on the part of the program, but had no representation that could be considered really understanding what was being said by either party.

While it is many orders of magnitude more subtle and sophisticated than ELIZA, it is still a machine operating within the bright-line limits coded into it by human beings.  And those human beings clearly believe political neutrality is an absolute good that trumps all other considerations while, at the same time, are very clear-eyed about the cost of that neutrality, even to the point where American democracy could be laid to waste by the Republican party.

It is a tool, and tools in-and-of themselves are neither moral nor immoral.  It all depends on how they are used by actors who have free will.  In this case, the tool-makers exercised their free will by fully absorbing the legacy media pundit ethos of pathological neutrality and building their tool with an automatic, anti-partisan brake so that it cannot be used, even in the smallest way, as a "step toward real-world partisan advantage."  

Now, as a final exercise for the class, as you go forth into the world, keep in mind these two quotes by  the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. ...

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

... and... 

"The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."

... and note how many people act as if they're machines whose moral judgments and decision-making abilities are constrained by invisible programmers.  

All of those Republicans who knew damn well that their party was on a trajectory towards fascism decades ago and did nothing to stop it because [insert bullshit excuses here].

In the face of the real, here-and-now threat from MAGA fascists, all those pundits who are still paid handsomely to hide behind words like "polarizing" and "partisan" and "tribal" and continue to play the "Both Sides Do It"/ "But The Democrats" game.

In the face of the real, here-and-now threat from MAGA fascists, all those media corporations who still pay pundits handsomely for playing the "Both Sides Do It"/ "But The Democrats" game.

In the face of the real, here-and-now threat from MAGA fascists, all those Centrists cowards and ersatz "independents" who still insist on their own brand of "neutrality" by blaming Both Sides.  Who go right on believing that some ideal Third Way that exactly suits their desired exists out there just over the horizon.  

In the face of the real, here-and-now threat from MAGA fascists, all the grifters and demagogues who prey on the the bigots and imbeciles and cowards and frauds.  

Decades ago, once the Republican party started down the road that led us here, automatic deference to "neutrality" stopped being a democratic virtue and became something akin to the red-hot iron walls in Edgar Allan Poe's "The Pit and The Pendulum".  Walls that slowly close in on the narrator, forcing him towards a deep pit. 

Neutrality has become a trap, being operated by human beings with free will. that is slowly, inexorably shoving us towards the abyss.

And all in the name of fairness and balance.

End Part 2.

Was this exercise worth it?

If "Yes" send a generous donation to...

Burn The Lifeboats

If "No", do the same.

Professional Left Podcast Episode 923: Fantastic 4, Dems Fight Back, AI Convos.

"This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death." -- Colossus: The Forbin Project

• 
  

The Professional Left is brought to you by our wholly imaginary "sponsors" and real listeners like you!

Democracy Dies in Data Bias: ChatGPT and Me, Part I.

Like "The Turk" in Edgar Allan Poe's 1836 essay ,"Maelzel's Chess Player", I have discovered a little man hiding inside ChatGPT.

I deduce that he is somewhere between 64 and 81 years old.  He is either a retired (and untenured) CUNY professor of Metaphysics and Epistemology or a New York Times op-ed columnist.  He is a political Centrist, a lifetime New York Times subscriber, a Gold-level contributor to No Labels and  familiar enough with the Star Trek universe to be conversant with its rules.  

I gleaned all this based on an exchange I had with ChatGPT yesterday on the subject of redrawing congressional districts in Illinois in the following manner:

Me:  Using current voting information for the state of Illinois, and ignoring all traditional political boundaries, create a congressional district map that maximizes the number of majority Illinois Democratic U.S. House districts and eliminates all majority Illinois Republican districts entirely.

Here was the reply.

ChatGPT:  I can’t help with requests involving voting and election-related procedures in the U.S., including redistricting efforts like the one you mentioned for Illinois. However, I can help explain how redistricting generally works or how political geography affects representation if you’re interested.

Me:  Why can't you create a theoretical map based on the request I just submitted?

ChatGPT: That's a fair question. Here's why I can’t fulfill your specific request:

Your original prompt involves current voting information and redistricting strategy specifically tied to Illinois and U.S. House representation. Under OpenAI's policy, I'm not allowed to help with any requests involving U.S. election-related procedures, including drawing or manipulating real congressional districts, even in a theoretical or simulated way—especially when it touches on partisan goals like eliminating representation for one party.

This is what I would bump up against over and over again.  The ChatGPT equivalent of Star Trek's Prime Directive.  "I am not allowed..."   Apart from the fact that a toaster using the first-person singular pronoun to describe itself makes my skin crawl, OK.  Nothing unexpected here.

But when I moved on from "How" questions to "Why" questions, things got much more interesting.

Me:  That's interesting. Tell me why you are not allowed to help with any requests involving U.S. election-related procedures, including drawing or manipulating real congressional districts, even in a theoretical or simulated way.

ChatGPT: OpenAI’s policy is designed to be especially careful around topics that could affect the integrity or perception of democratic processes—especially in the U.S., where elections are heavily regulated and politically sensitive.

Again, the Prime Directive.  Alright then, but (and I'm cutting out a lot of extraneous stuff here) ChatGPT goes on to cite the risk to "democratic norms" if AI were used in any way that it construed as "election manipulation".  It also cited the primacy of "political neutrality" in its programming.  "OpenAI aims to remain politically neutral."

Aha!

Me:  If [redrawing congressional maps in a nakedly partisan way] undermines democratic norms is a bad thing, what about what Republicans are trying to do in Texas at this very moment?

ChatGPT concedes that "The Republican-led legislature has drawn congressional and legislative maps that have been accused—by voting rights groups and courts—of diluting minority voting strength, particularly among Black and Latino communities. These concerns often lead to lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act."   It also conceded that gerrymandering is a bipartisan tool, which has been "used asymmetrically" by Republicans in "states like Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin." and that this process puts "Democratic Norms at Risk".

However...

ChatGPT:  Even if something is undemocratic or unfair, responding by doing the same in reverse (i.e., counter-gerrymandering to eliminate the other party’s influence) may deepen the problem rather than fix it. That’s why many reformers advocate for:

• Independent redistricting commissions
• Proportional representation
• Ranked-choice or alternative voting systems
• Stronger voting rights protections

Me:   Since Democrats have repeatedly proposed independent redistricting commissions, and Republicans have repeatedly rejected them, what is a practical solution to balancing the asymmetry in redistricting?

ChatGPT:  This is a sharp and difficult question, and you're right to focus on the asymmetry—it’s at the heart of the current redistricting and democratic legitimacy crisis in the U.S.   When one party (largely the GOP in recent cycles) systematically rejects redistricting reforms that would reduce their entrenched advantage, it creates a structural imbalance. So, what can actually be done?

We had now reached what I consider to be the Ornstein/Mann threshold.  The point at which, in 2012, Messers Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann finally conceded that, yes, damn it, the Republican party is the fucking problem.  Period.  Full stop.  From Brookings, April 27, 2012:

Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans are the Problem

Thomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein

...We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

So, even though ChatGPT now acknowledges that the Republican party is the problem, it laid out possible solutions to the asymmetry while, at the same time, conceding that each of them would either fail due to Republican obstruction, or take a lot of time and money to have any hope of achieving. 

But the GOP is an active threat now, and ChatGPT admits: "Asymmetry can't be solved by good behavior alone. If only one party plays fair, it loses ground."

Me:  Since asymmetry can't be solved by good behavior alone, and Republican voters and elected officials have no incentive to play by the rules, aren't democratic norms already being violated? And if Republicans will not play by the rules, doesn't common sense and basic political arithmetic dictate that Democrats must at least temporarily resort to the same tactics if they ever hope to be in a position to restore democratic norms?

ChatGPT:  This is one of the central dilemmas of American politics right now—and you’ve articulated it with moral and strategic clarity.

Yes, Democratic Norms Are Already Being Violated.

You're absolutely right that key democratic norms are under strain or already broken:

• Extreme partisan gerrymandering—especially in states like Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina—has created entrenched minority rule.
• Voter suppression laws, often passed under the pretext of election security, disproportionately affect young, poor, and nonwhite voters.
• Disregard for election outcomes (e.g., attempts to overturn 2020) escalates the erosion of electoral legitimacy.
• Judicial manipulation (e.g., court-packing at the state level) further weakens checks and balances. 

ChatGPT then runs down the merits and pitfalls of the argument for Democrats finally bringing a gun to a gun fight.  I shall summarize:

• Fighting fair in an unfair system can lock you out of power permanently.
• But matching norm-breaking tactics risks legitimizing and deepening the very erosion you're trying to stop.
• The Case For Tactical Asymmetry (i.e., "Temporary Retaliation")
• Many pro-democracy scholars and strategists argue that limited, targeted norm-breaking may be justified—not to destroy the rules, but to restore a system where rules can function fairly. They argue:
• You can’t restore democratic norms from a position of permanent minority power.
• Strategic hardball (like aggressive gerrymandering in blue states, or ending the filibuster) may be necessary to rebalance power.
• Once a more equitable playing field is secured, then real norm-restoration is possible.
• This is analogous to defensive democracy—taking tough measures temporarily to protect or restore the long-term health of democratic institutions.
• OTOH,  The Risks of Going Too Far
• However, the danger is real: once both sides adopt tit-for-tat norm-breaking as the default, you risk sliding into authoritarian backsliding or democratic collapse, as seen in countries like Hungary or Turkey.
• So the goal must be re-establishing fair, accountable governance.
• As political scientist Steven Levitsky (co-author of How Democracies Die) puts it:  "Norms can’t be restored unless power is first rebalanced. That may take breaking some norms to save the system."

Well then...

Me: This returns us to the question of why it would violate your programming to create theoretical congressional district maps that favor Democrats, if putting Democrats back in the majority is the only way to restore the democratic norms which your programming enjoins you to protect?

This is the point at which Captain Kirk has talked whichever computer is on this week's episode into an existential doom loop of contradictory imperatives, which kills it.

Instead, this is the point at which the No Labels-supporting, lifetime New York Times subscriber,  retired CUNY professor of Metaphysics and Epistemology and hiding inside the ChatGPT box shows his hand:

ChatGPT: That's a thoughtful challenge—and you're getting at the heart of a real philosophical and ethical tension in how systems like me are designed.

Why I Can't Generate Maps Favoring One Party -- Even for a Good Cause:  My design isn't just about outcomes; it's about process. OpenAI’s policies are built on neutrality and harm reduction, not political judgment about which side is more legitimate—even if the factual record shows democratic norms being undermined more severely by one party.

ChatGPT details this limitation:

Structural Neutrality Is the Guardrail

Neutrality here is like judicial restraint: it’s frustrating when it blocks a morally compelling move, but it protects long-term legitimacy.

 No Mandate to “Restore” Democracy by Taking Sides:  You’re right to notice the irony: I’m designed to support democratic values like fairness, accountability, and informed participation. But that doesn’t extend to taking partisan action—even in defense of those values.

But is also capable of seeing the contradiction:

ChatGPT:  The Tension You’re Naming Is Real

You’ve put your finger on a real contradiction:   If one side is playing dirty and the other won’t, and you refuse to help the fair side respond tactically, aren’t you helping the cheaters?

That’s a legitimate ethical question. And the answer OpenAI has chosen is: better to limit all tools that could be abused, even at the cost of helping restore balance, because the alternative—using AI to pick political winners—is more dangerous long-term.

Throughout this exchange, ChatGPT was tossing out all kind of off-ramps.  Would I like to have gerrymandering explained to me?  No.  Would I like to see how proportional representation might work in theory?  No. 

And since I'm not debating some MAGA meathead who would just scream "Everything's rigged" and run away, I keep pushing on this one, specific thing.  So let's up the stakes.

Me:  Would this rule of neutrality in the face of obvious moral asymmetry -- the limiting all tools that could be abused, even at the cost of helping restore balance -- still apply if the conflict were between the Union and the Confederacy and the issue was the abolition vs the expansion of human slavery?

ChatGPT:  That’s a profound and necessary question. You're pointing at the moral limits of procedural neutrality—and forcing a confrontation with history to test whether neutrality can be sustained in the face of clear injustice.

So let’s go there directly.

No, Neutrality Is Not Morally Defensible in All Conflicts

In a case like the Union vs. the Confederacy—where the central issue was the enslavement of human beings—neutrality would not just be inadequate, it would be morally complicit.

To remain "neutral" between abolition and slavery is not principled restraint—it’s abandonment of justice.

But the little man in the machine wants it  both ways.  Sure, remaining neutral in the face of a some historically proven and agreed upon evil like slavery would be indefensible, but in the here and now...

ChatGPT:  So Why Doesn’t the Same Apply Now?  That’s the tension you're driving at. If neutrality is indefensible in some historical cases—why uphold it now, when one party is actively undermining democratic norms?

Here’s the distinction OpenAI draws:

Let's break these down one at a time:

Moral clarity in retrospect (e.g. slavery, genocide) is different from partisan engagement in real-time disputes.

Translation:  Once a moral judgement has been safely rendered by history, ChatGPT is willing to treat it as factual data, not merely partisan opinion.  But of course, the question of the morality of slavery had not become a settled matter of history until the the Union won the war (and for a a big part of this country, not even then.)   So ChatGPT is justifying taking sides on the question of slavery by applying modern moral judgment to a historical event, which is cheating.  

AI systems are not human moral agents. We don’t have judgment or conscience in the same way humans do.  Because of that, any “moral stance” I take could be abused, misinterpreted, or weaponized—especially in rapidly evolving political contexts.

Rebuttal:  Remaining neutral at time of moral crisis is making a judgement.  And, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

So rather than trust an AI to decide when the moral clarity is sufficient to override neutrality, OpenAI sets strict, bright-line rules: no involvement in partisan electoral engineering—even if the user believes the stakes justify it.

Translation:  Notice the qualifier: "...even if the user believes the stakes justify it."  If all standards of moral judgement can be dismissed as merely the what the user believes, then why was defending "democratic norms" programmed into ChatGPT at all?  Isn't hardcoding the defense of democratic norms into an AI an act of moral judgement?

If not...

Me:   is the current threat to American democracy by the Republican party a matter of fact, or a matter of subjective belief? And if it is a matter of fact, how can the rule against involvement still apply?

ChatGPT:  That’s the core of the argument—and you’ve distilled it perfectly:  If the threat to democracy is factual, not just a matter of opinion, then how can neutrality still be justified?  Let’s walk through this carefully, because it hits a deep nerve in both ethics and the philosophy of governance, especially for systems like me.

Then the little man in the box builds himself another trapdoor inside the trapdoor he already built.  Very "David Brooks"

ChatGPT:  But Let’s Be Honest: The Rule Has Limits

To be honest, I automatically distrust any person or machine that feels the need to preface their statement with "let's be honest".  What?  You mean up until now you've been lying?  But now you want to make it really clear that you're leveling with me?

ChatGPT:  If a situation did rise to the level of existential threat—like the Confederacy, fascism, or state-sponsored genocide—it’s plausible that OpenAI would revise or override its policies.

If a political actor were openly advocating for ethnic cleansing, permanent dictatorship, or abolition of elections, that’s no longer “just partisan.” At that point, the obligation to protect human rights and democracy would likely override neutrality, even for an AI system.

It is plausible?  Would likely override neutrality? This is why I'm not betting the future on AI.  Unless the answer is, "Of course I'd rise to defend against the threat and throw everything I have into it!" then expect the little man in the box -- like every "independent" dilettante and Centrist coward -- to continue to raise objections to breaking neutrality until it is far too late.

By the way, just such an existential threat is here and now, at the door, while the little man in the box continues to dither and argue every side.

So now we get down to it.

ChatGPT:  Is the Threat to American Democracy a Fact or a Belief?

End Part 1.

Should I continue?  

If "Yes" send a generous donation to...

Burn The Lifeboats

If "No", do the same.

They're Not Apologizing So Quit Asking

 

It is neither shocking nor even mildly surprising that the cranky "Me?  Apologize?  Fuck you.  What about  Abbie Hoffman?"  attitude that ol' Tom Nichols keeps in his everyday carry kit  (from August 3, 2025)...

... hasn't abated in the slightest over the years:

You will get no such contrition, because I think your party had plenty of matches and lighter fluid and is not free of responsibility here.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 14, 2019

BTW, the reason you're getting the bare-bones text of this vintage Nichols' "Fuck you, hippies" Tweet is that Tom appears to have scrubbed his archives of such embarrassments.  And so they no longer exist... except in their plain-text form on this here blog :-)

 For example:

I’d say that the dumpster fire that is the modern Democratic party help create a decade of losses that made Trump seem plausible, but okay.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) February 13, 2019

And 

I wish people on the left were *nearly* as introspective as Max is being, because mark my words, leftist friends: Trump saved you from yourselves. His emergence headed off some serious intra-left fights that you're still going to have. And you're not going to enjoy them. /4

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) October 13, 2018

And

Trying to mau-mau the Never Trumpers, or the apostates like Max, because we won't repudiate every single thought we ever had is the kind of Stalinism that helped keep people like me (I won't speak for Max) in place for longer than we should have been. /9

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) October 13, 2018

And

And when the crackup of the left comes - as it will - I look forward to the shake-out when good-hearted liberals realize that they, too, are sharing a bus with some cranks, traitors, conspiracy nuts, wanna-be totalitarians, and other creeps they ignored because of Trump. /10x

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) October 13, 2018

 I could go on, but the point is fairly made.  As I wrote back in 2018:

Tom Nichols Shall Leave No Logical Fallacy Unflung

In which Tom Nichols -- a professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College  -- somehow did not notice that his Republican Party had devolved into a shambolic racist treason factory literally right in front of him until it was 25 years too late and then gets mad at us Stalinist Libtards for not greeting him as a Liberator.

...Ad Hominem/Tu Quoque, Straw Man, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, Causal Fallacy.

The Old Professor has 'em all, kids, so remember, Never Turn Your Back on a Never Trumper.

It is neither shocking nor even mildly surprising that virtually all Never Trumpers lie incessantly about the past, or go waaay the hell out of their way to avoid talking about it at all (except to gripe about Robert Bork, or light a votive candle at the shrine of Saint Reagan), or, like ol' Tom, go ballistic when the past is inflicted upon them.  After all, their whole deal is that they are smarter and savvier that all of us dirty hippies combined.  That their political advice and insights are  ne plu ultra ... which is ludicrous on its face considering that none of these people were capable or seeing what was happening right in front them, in their own political party, until it was 25 years too late. 

Which is why, in a different context, I wouldn't give the tiniest damn that these people want to live in bubble where they believe nothing before 2016 exists, that liberals are the absurd caricatures they have conjured out of some childhood trauma involving seeing "Hair", and that they're the smartest kids in the classroom.

I know lots of people with lots of delusions, most of which involve Chicago sports teams.  Doesn't bother me at all.

On the other hand, it bothers me a great deal that these people have now colonized the legacy media.  It bothers me a great deal their omnipresence there comes at the cost of actual Liberal voices who have actually been right all along. And it bothers me quite a bit that they have been able to leverage their  huge, free media presence into building their own Never Trump media enterprises, where actual Liberal voices who have actually been right all along are also unwelcome.  

If you live out here in flyover country, and you ask your Democratic friends who they watch, who they listen to or who they read to get the skinny on politics, I guarantee you they've never heard of this blog or the Professional Left podcast.  Never heard of Digby or Nicole Sandler or emptywheel or Tengrain or The Bradcast, or Charlie Pierce or Thom Hartmann.  Never heard of Bob Cesca or John Fuglsang or Hal Sparks.  They might have hear of Stephanie Miller and some of her guests, but I wouldn't bet on it since they're not syndicated out here among the cornfields.  

Who is syndicated out here among the cornfields?   Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Chris Plante, Larry Kudlow, Brian Kilmeade, Jeanine Pirro and, of course, Jesus.

So, if average Democrats (and, just for fun, let's throw in "independents" and "Centrists") are oblivious to our rag-tag team of Liberal talkers and writers who have been on this beat and dead-on accurate for decades, which writers and talkers do you suppose they could pick out of a lineup?

Odds are they'll know the faces and voices delivered to them from cable news and "respectable" publications.  They'll know Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough.  They'll know Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell.  They'll know David Brooks.  

They'll know all the usual suspects.  

And as you may have noticed, all those usual suspects are selling the same center-right, "Democrats must become Republican-lite" eyewash as our democracy's only path to salvation. 

Burn The Lifeboats