Just before the third chapter of “How I Became A Famous Novelist,” Steve Hely’s 2009 satirical novel lampooning the publishing industry, he includes a fake New York Times Best Seller list. The No. 4 Nonfiction slot goes to “Needs Improvement In All Areas,” an attack on President George W. Bush, written by his former kindergarten teacher.
That happened for real today when The New York Times broke the news that an administrator from Sen. Josh Hawley’s middle school disapproved of his politics.
Barbara Weibling is quoted condemning her former middle school charge. Left unsaid by The New York Times is that Barbara Weibling is a left-wing activist. She is a small but committed donor to Democrats, and a perusal of her Facebook page shows she’s not exactly an unbiased educator. Her avatar is a flattering portraiture of Vice President Kamala Harris in the foreground, with President Joe Biden in the background.
She posts about her strong dislike of Fox News (where this reporter is a contributor) and love of Russia collusion conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. She posts outlandish left-wing claims from a group called “Occupy Democrats.” In between the supportive posts of socialism, Bernie Sanders, and Biden are attacks on Republicans going back to Reagan, at least. Is it really news that her dislike of Republicans extends to a former student at her school?
As silly as the whole thing is, the Times’ Elaina Plott and Danny Hakim debased themselves further by — and I’m in no way joking here — asking Hawley’s high school prom date for her thoughts. His prom date. HIS PROM DATE.
“I’ve been very disappointed to see who he has become,” said Kristen Ruehter-Thompson, who is pictured here in an online fundraiser from a few years ago with her family:
The entire construct of the article is a joke. People may want to ask Plott and Hakim’s prom dates or playdate partners about how they feel about their old acquaintances working for a publication that goes after people in this manner.
I’m sure their non-leftist buddies, if they lived in diverse-enough circumstances to have any, would find it objectionable and embarrassing that they work for a publication that published this article, much less the error-riddled agitprop of the 1619 Project, and that allowed the founder of the 1619 Project to spread conspiracy theories without repercussions, fired Don McNeil for offending privileged teenagers, drove Bari Weiss out of the publication for failing to adhere to even more leftist thinking, allows Taylor Lorenz to make up stories on the regular against her political targets, published op-eds from Russia collusion conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch, nearly imploded over a Republican senator offering an op-ed that had majority support in the country regarding the use of the military to quell riots, ran wild with shameful Brett Kavanaugh conspiracy theories, and a million other embarrassing editorial choices.
Everyone knows that the Times is upset with Hawley for being effective and that it is willing to phone up any Democrat, leftist, or political rival who could claim to know him in order to attempt to tarnish him. The New York Times’ real problem is that, despite their best efforts to deplatform him, Josh Hawley is not going away. Axios reported yesterday that Hawley “has been a fundraising boon — not just for him but his party.”
The media may wish that the coordinated effort to control the outcome of the 2020 election through censorship, deplatforming, and removing scrutiny for mail-in ballots be downplayed or ignored, but some people aren’t allowing that to happen. Hawley is one of the Republican elected officials who takes highly funded and highly coordinated Democrat efforts against vote integrity seriously, and that’s the main reason left-wing activists in and outside the media are opposed to him.
The 5,000-word hit piece also talks to a college rival named Irina Manta. Manta is a law professor who regularly retweets the most discredited NeverTrump enthusiasts. While her criticisms for the article are about her view that he didn’t work hard enough as a volunteer event planner during college – yes, really – she has also repeatedly criticized his wife in a manner reminiscent of “Mean Girls.” She was “surprised” Erin Hawley married her husband.
After left-wing activists harassed Erin and her children at their home, Manta was upset that she spoke against such harassment, repeating the left-wing talking point that legitimate concern about lack of election security and attendant election fraud is a “big lie.” Manta would not let her obsession with Erin go.
For whatever it’s worth, Manta found herself accused of racist attacks on her neighbors. She led a campaign to stop fireworks from being launched in her New York neighborhood, earning her the sobriquet “Ditmas Park Karen.” Local activists said she was part of “white gentrifying forces” who merely give lip service to “Black Lives Matter” while calling the police on actual black neighbors.
Again, it is perhaps not surprising that left-wing activists Hawley has met over the years do not like how effective he has been as attorney general of Missouri and United States senator.
Plott and Hakim, who seem to have regurgitated the same article when it was written previously by other media outlets, mention Hawley’s time as attorney general of Missouri, but they don’t mention that he sued multiple opioid manufacturers for fraud, obtained more than $32 million in restitution for Missouri consumers, or that he investigated tech giants Google and Facebook on anti-trust and consumer privacy issues.
Instead, the reporters quoted Andrew Hirth, the deputy under Hawley’s Democrat predecessor, saying “I don’t think he had much interest in that office, really.”
They mention the predecessor for whom Hirth worked was a Democrat, but they might have also mentioned that Hirth’s law firm – Trachtenberg Germinder Hirth Litigation LLC – worked for the campaign of Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom Hawley defeated. Hirth is a donor to Democrats. The long-time Hawley critic has also been investigated for potential ethics violations by the attorney general’s office for representing clients in employment-related litigation after defending the employer.
Nice try, New York Times, but let’s cease with the junior-high-school hit pieces.