04-18-2019 07:46:35 AM -0700
04-18-2019 07:18:40 AM -0700
04-15-2019 06:20:33 PM -0700
04-11-2019 03:17:31 PM -0700
04-08-2019 01:57:34 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Dan Rather, Here's Why No One Cares When You Say 'History Is Watching'

At no point in my life do I remember a presidential election quite like this one. The two major parties have given us candidates that are beyond terrible by every measure. A friend describes the choice as one between a kick in the crotch and a punch in the face -- I couldn't disagree with him.

Even the leading third-party candidate, Libertarian Gary Johnson, seems to be doing everything he can to throw the election in his effort to lure Bernie Sanders voters; that right-leaning libertarians and conservatives are being repelled seems irrelevant to Johnson.

Then, we have Dan Rather.

After Donald Trump's latest ... comments regarding Hillary Clinton, the former CBS anchorman decided to issue a warning to Trump's supporters. Said Rather in a Facebook post:

To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh.

History is watching?

Really?

Tell us, Dan Rather: was history watching when the DNC aligned with Hillary, subverting the process to make sure Bernie Sanders would not be the nominee?

Was history watching when four Americans were killed in Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton offered a series of lies to absolve herself of blame? Topped off by her "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Where were your admonishments then, Dan?

Additionally, let's be honest here. What are the odds that the average Republican is going to care what Dan Rather says about "history's" judgment?