Does anyone else feel this all started with Sarah Palin?

[StevieM]

60. There are a lot of interesting answers on this thread. Here is another: Oliver North

Here is a link to a post a put up earlier this year.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028548992


We began down the road to Donald Trump on July 7, 1987 when Oliver North testified before Congress.

Looking back that was a real turning point.

I had thought in the past that nominating Trump was similar to nominating North in Virginia for Senate in 1994. It was the GOP voters' way of saying "screw you." But North has much greater relevance here.

People celebrated North as a hero. He kicked butt and took names. He placed blame on the liberal enemy within. He proclaimed that America doesn't lose wars and we could have won Vietnam if not for Washington politicians. He was clean cut and in uniform, as opposed to the long-haired hippy lawyer questioning him.

This was the start of the U.S. becoming fact-resistant. North was a hero even though he was clearly a criminal. Even though he clearly subverted the Constitution of the United States. His poll numbers later went down, but it is frightening that they were ever good to begin with. North was able to win people over simply by identifying the liberal threat to real Americans and doing his part to fight it.

Donald Trump won because of the fake email scandal. Had it not been for that fake scandal he would have been slaughtered. Even if you throw in the bogus attacks over Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation, along with the last-minute Obamacare premium hikes, HRC still would have destroyed him. If he was really lucky he might have lost by as little as 12 points. It probably would have been more like 14 points IMO. Obama would have beaten him by 20 points had he been allowed to run for re-election.

The ability to sell the fake email scandal was based on the lack of need for fact-based analysis. People decide based on their gut. It sounds about right that a former first lady would get special treatment. And so if people with titles like "Mr. Speaker" are saying "it defies explanation" that she isn't being indicted--for something--then they are inclined to believe it. They can't imagine that Republicans at the FBI or State Department Inspector General's Office would be partisan just because they are Republicans and this is what Republicans do. If you are a non-partisan voter than you are unlikely to be persuaded by a hyper-partisan argument, even if the facts are hyper-partisan. And that especially holds true when the accused is somehow associated with the liberal side and the accusers are somehow associated with the wonderful word "conservative."

Iran-Contra taught the Republicans that they can get away with anything. In a twisted way it makes perfect sense that Iran-Contra is treated like nothing while the fake email scandal is treated like Watergate. Because the facts are not relevant. Oliver North being treated like a hero is the ultimate example of that.