The Neo-con Con is Over

By Rich Kozlovich

It used to be when I went on line I opened to a blank Google page. Now I open to a page that's got all sorts of crap I don't want and don't need. However, I've decided not to fix that because it also posts all sorts of stuff about how much trouble Trump is in, just about assuring me he's going to jail, because some former Obama political hack says so. It's good to know what these "experts" are thinking and saying.

That kind of mentality permeates much of the media, including some "conservative" sites. It appears the Weekly Standard's neo-conservatives, who have become "unmoored to reality" and keep insisting the Trump Presidency is crumbling,  has discovered, Hating The President Is Not a Strategy, As Bill Kristol Just Learned. 

What's a neo-conservative?  A liberal who had a serious confrontation with reality, but never serious enough to be a real conservative.  Real conservatives have had it with them, and they're paying the penalty. 

But I don't disparage them for their open distaste for Trump.  I give them credit for that, except they attempted to tell real conservatives that they were the real conservatives and everyone else who professed to be a conservative, but disagreed with them, were reactionaries.  Just like Hillary's Basket of Deplorables. 

These faux conservatives aren't alone in paying that penalty.  The liberal media propaganda machine of the Democrat party is facing the same problem.  Apparently "Vice, Vox, Mic, Buzzfeed, Mashable — are "all either looking for buyers or seriously reevaluating their strategies in hopes of becoming profitable."  And truthfully, I expect to see the National Review on this list at some point soon. 

So what's my point?  All these media outlets are convinced the public is on their side and they're on the right side of history.  So then, why are they going broke?  Why is the public turned off of these anti-Trump outlets, and their liberal leaning media outlet brethern, all of whom insist Trump is doomed? 

Maybe because they're not on the right side of history, and maybe because the public really isn't against Trump.  As for the popular vote argument - when you have the level of voter fraud that has been going on in Democrat districts for decades it's surprising the numbers aren't even more askew, but that number is fallacious, and needs to be ignored in understanding what Americans' believe.
 
The final question.  How many Democrats wouldn't have been elected to the Congress if there was no voter fraud?

Update:  Although I posted this now, I wrote it yesterday, and since then I've read this article in American Thinker,  Tough times for online media.  It appears the online general news sources are having difficulty also.