[poconopundit]

Truth be told, Will's technique is to mix one or two sentences of truth with paragraphs of historical babble.  And the aim is to impress us with his incredible mastery of American political history.

And the more obscure the reference, the better for Will because he can now illuuuu-minate we mere mortals and never fear someone calling him to task for getting the facts wrong.

An example is in this piece:

Back in the 1880s and 1890s, when populism was sweeping the prairies, where Mary Elizabeth Lease is saying farmers should "raise less corn and more hell," the populists knew exactly what they want.   They wanted regulation of freight rates to get their crops to market.   They wanted lower prices on grain elevators, they wanted free coinage of silver to reduce the loans that farmers had to get. They wanted an end of tariffs.   This is a very specific agenda.   I don't know, perhaps you can tell me, what is specifically, Trump's agenda do the Trump people have?

See what I mean?   Will lulls us with his poetry.   He talks about "prairies" and "grain elevators" to mystify us about America's glorious past.   And the purpose is make us believe that he's actually saying something profound.

But what Will says here is not profound at all.   All he's saying is that "Trump is not being specific". But that analysis is bogus because Trump wrote Crippled America, has a website, Instagrams, Facebook pages, and talks about his policies at huge rallies 2 or 3 times a week.

To be perfectly honest, some of the commentators I read on Free Republic are much clearer and show keener analysis that Mr. Will.

FR is a much better read than the Washington Post!   You learn things.   You can ask questions.   You read witty back and forth commentary.   Several times, I've keeled over laughing at some of the clever insults!   It's great.

In short, the chatter of the citizen patriots on FR is far more illuuuu-minating and fun to read than Will's babble.

[DouglasKC]

Exactly that. For all the people who say “Trump has no specifics” it just means “I’m too lazy to look them up and believe the media”.

[Harpotoo]

Yeah he’s just another trying to impress by babbling BS! I guess he and Whoopi can share a private Jet to Canada come Jan 2017!

[Smokin' Joe]

Will's technique is to mix one or two sentences of truth with paragraphs of historical babble.

Like that doesn't happen every day in posted articles around here.

It is what passes for editorialism and journalism.

The idea isn't so much to sort things out as support a foregone conclusion. It is the same sort of 'evidence' which is used to prop up the Climate Change gig.

I would like to see it laid out, who supported or benefited from what liberal policy, when (and even with footnotes to context to see why). I'd like to see the same done with Conservative policy and the leading candidates--of both parties.

[miss marmelstein]

Nicely written.

[IwaCornDogs]

Well, we were definitely on the same wave length! I had a very similar post written up last night, (however, not nearly as epigrammatic in style as yours), in response to reading the entire attached thread.

As I do frequently, I hit delete instead of post.

Fine commentary scattered throughout ... yours included! I rarely turn on my tv, and never have a need to listen to the babble coming from the talking-heads because of FR.

p.s. I had to look up that big word I used :)

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3386298/posts?q=1&;page=1