Every modern political campaign these days is fraught with scandal. The severity of the scandal depends on a number of factors, not the least of which being how the politician at the center of it reacts.
This year, the Vice Presidential candidates (or at least the one on the ticket that actually got votes at the convention) are battling over stolen valor. As the son of someone who served (and as someone who isn’t a complete asshole…although the jury’s still out on that one), I take this matter pretty seriously. And that’s why I try to do my homework so I’m not throwing out an accusation that I can’t back up, thus not looking like a complete asshole in that case.
There is a lot more behind stolen valor than the words themselves, and in today’s hyper-political environment, it’s especially important to be accurate.
But since the person responsible for accuracy is on vacation, it’s my job.
stolen valor
What the Left thinks it means – an unfounded accusation made against Tim Walz that makes JD Vance look stupid
What it really means – taking credit for unearned military achievements
When dealing with military matters, I try to look for authoritative sources. And I’m going to guess a website chronicling the Medal of Honor and other military honors might just fit the bill.
HomeofHeroes.com describes stolen valor thus:
“Stolen Valor” is a term applied to the phenomenon of people falsely claiming military awards or medals they did not earn, service they did not perform, Prisoner of War experiences that never happened, and other tales of military actions that exist only in their minds.
So, no matter your rank in Call of Duty, you aren’t really a military expert, nor should you talk to anyone outside of your gaming group about your rank. And given some of the video gamers I’ve known, their rank isn’t just a military term.
Regardless, the description above jibes with something I’ve experienced personally. Those who served don’t tend to talk about it very much, while those who didn’t or served lighter duty than Al Gore can’t stop talking about it. Those who practice stolen valor are usually trying to pull a scam, whether it be for a discount on a breakfast meal, bang a hot and dumb sexual conquest, or a few pity dollars along the roadway. Those who get away with it tend to keep pushing it until the time they’re exposed as frauds.
Which brings us to politics.
The war of words between JD Vance and Tim Walz began when Vance accused Walz of stolen valor. Since then, Walz has rhetorically fired back, stating Vance shouldn’t denigrate anyone’s service record, let alone his.
Now for the $64,000 Question: is Walz guilty of stolen valor? (It was either that or “Where are your pants, sir?”)
Wellll…that’s a really good question (the stolen valor one, not the pants one). A lot depends on who you ask. Leftists, of course, say Walz is innocent and that Vance served less time than Walz did. The Right, on the other hand, noted Walz claimed a rank he hadn’t really earned and made a claim he experienced war during a speech about the need for gun control.
The thing is…both sides are right to a point. Although Walz isn’t trying to scam people out of anything but votes, he did claim a rank he didn’t earn. And although he did that, it’s questionable whether it rises to the level of stolen valor. As such, I think Vance and Donald Trump should drop this line of attack sooner rather than later since they don’t have a Delorean and a flux capacitor. Also, it gives Walz a chance to appear to be a victim of “right wing attacks” which will make Trump/Vance look dishonest and mean by comparison.
Of course, the media lead us to believe they are already, so…it’s a wash, I guess?
This is one of the pitfalls of politicizing stolen valor: if you’re wrong, you’re likely fucked. Furthermore, it takes something serious and reduces it to a talking point. Republicans will continue to say Walz is guilty of stolen valor, Leftists will continue to dismiss the allegation and point to Trump’s less-than-existent military career. And in the end, nobody’s really going to be convinced or do the digging into the allegations to find the truth.
Well, except for me, and my excuse is I don’t have hobbies, so take that for what it’s worth.
There is one upside to this, for me at least. Leftists, who have spent decades decrying war and violence, now have a Vice Presidential candidate who thumps his chest with pride for…being involved in war. Granted, the most action Walz saw was a really big squirt gun fight, but the point stands. Maybe they’re too caught up in the joy the Harris/Walz campaign is bringing to the race (at least, that’s what the media keep telling us).
Joy overdose or not, the Left’s hypocrisy here is worth pointing out. And by “pointing out” I mean “mock mercilessly.” You want peace in Palestine, but back a veteran in the #2 slot of the ticket? If you can make that make sense without invoking “Orange Man Bad,” give it a go. Just know I will be laughing at your futility.
Regardless of how you feel about Walz’s retirement or Vance’s service, the point is they both signed up for something I couldn’t do because I was young and stupid. They served this country willingly, and for that they both have my deepest respect. The rest of the shit they’ve done, though…that’s fair game.
Before I close this out and await the slings and arrows of outrageous Internet comments, I do have to call out Walz for his response to Vance’s accusations of stolen valor. No matter how much you try to frame it as maligning your military service, the fact is it wasn’t that much of a slight, and certainly not so much of a slight that it required a response more than a so-what. By showing it bothers you, you have given Trump/Vance a means to needle you and make you look defensive.
You know, the way you made them look defensive when you called them “weird”?
And given the fact the head of your ticket is more vacant than a We Can’t Afford a Roof Inn during rainy season, you’re taking the focus away from the her. Then again, if I had a record like Kamala Harris’s, I’d be embarrassed to show my face in public, too. Nevertheless, your response gave the accusation oxygen, which allows people from all sides to weigh in on the topic.
Including some of the folks you served with.
Maybe you can get some tips from John “Swift Boat, Not Swift Thinker” Kerry about that. Provided, of course, you can sit through a James Taylor set.
Meanwhile, I urge my conservative brethren and sistren to knock off the stolen valor claims against Tim Walz. They’re not helping. Besides, I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find way worse shit with which to rhetorically batter him.
Category: Humor
The Joy Offensive
Since Kamala Harris picked Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate for the 2024 Presidential election (all without dealing with the silly little detail of getting actual delegates through the primary process), the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have been working overtime to fluff up the ticket like it was on a porn set. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
The result has been glowing reviews, lots of money being raised, and social media abuzz with talk of joy surrounding the ticket. Polls that showed Harris less popular than an STD have flipped, leaving the Trump/Vance ticket to scratch their heads in amazement. Either that or they need Head and Shoulders. Regardless, it’s the political equivalent of Lazarus being raised from the dead.
On the surface, it’s a mystery. How could a Vice President known more for word salads and failed initiatives than success get the upper hand on a former President known more for word salads and odd initiatives, but still can count successes on both hands? It starts with the framing of the Harris/Walz ticket. And for that, we can thank the Walzster. He had the bright idea of calling the Trump/Vance ticket “weird” which caught on like wildfire. Then again, TikTok videos catch on like wildfire, too, so it’s not exactly a high bar.
If you missed my tepid take on the “weird” controversy, I got your hookup. Although I have panned the notion, I can’t argue with the results. It’s become a Leftist squawking point and a clear point of irritation for Trump/Vance, which takes attention away from the issues, thanks in part to the media.
But that’s only the first part of the equation. Although Trump and Vance have been refuting the allegations they are “weird,” Harris/Walz have taken a step into another phase of the campaign: reimagining their ticket as the ticket of joy. Since being chosen, Walz has been seen as more of a father or grandfather figure, and Harris has been emphasizing how she represents hope and joy.
Hmmm…hope as a campaign platform. Nah, it would never work!
Harris has also tapped into the youth culture by adopting a “brat summer” approach. For those of you who don’t know what that means, be glad you’re uninformed because it’s just as stupid as it sounds. But, again, the results speak for themselves at least for now. Whether the young people inspired by the Harris/Walz joy offensive get inspired to vote is still in question, but I’m sure there’s a Kinko’s in Washington, DC, already working on printing up prefilled ballots for Harris/Walz.
So with all this joy and positivity going around, there can’t be a down side, can there? As your resident cynical curmudgeon, I can say there is, and it’s pretty easy to spot if you’re paying attention.
Which means Leftists are completely in the dark about it.
The first thing to point out about the joy offensive is it’s based on nothing. No policy statements, no real interviews or press conferences, not even an updated campaign website with policy positions (but more than a few ways you can donate to the campaign). Which, if you really think about it, is pretty on-brand for Kamala Harris, but that’s not important right now.
Now, compare the joy the Harris/Walz/media narrative spins to what’s actually going on right now. If you listen to the squawking heads like perpetually-wrong-but-never-in-doubt Paul Krugman, everything is fine and you’re just too dumb to realize it. (And, yes, that’s really what they’re suggesting/saying.) Yet, if you go to where the people really are, things aren’t good. Inflation is higher than Willie Nelson in Amsterdam on 4/20, goods and services are more expensive, and you need a third mortgage to get a tank of gas, mainly because you used your second mortgage to get groceries for the week. No amount of joy is going to make any of this go away, but by God, Harris/Walz is gonna try!
And there’s a good chance they may succeed, at least for now. But try paying your mortgage with joy. Just let me know what happens after the foreclosure sale.
The great irony of this approach is it’s policies like the ones Harris/Walz have advocated that has caused the pain. Appealing to people’s desire to be happy is designed to get people to ignore that little fact. Who cares if Harris was the Border Czar in spite of the media saying otherwise? Who cares if Walz made it okay to take away parents’ children if they didn’t want to mutilate the children if little Timmy feels like little Tammy for a hot minute? Who cares if the COVID lockdowns caused more problems than they allegedly solved? Just be happy, dammit!
I can’t deny there are times when we need diversions from the flaming dumpster fire that is America 2024. Video games, movies, writing semi-well-received blogs with marginal humor, those are all ways to tune out the world and plug in to your inner peace. Your mileage may vary, but the point’s the same. We shouldn’t expect politicians to provide us joy. Unless, of course, your joy comes from spending billions of dollars you don’t have on stuff that doesn’t work. That’s retail therapy on steroids, kids.
More to the point, if you think government has the ability to bring you the joy you seek in life, you’ve already succumbed to the trap. The more a government can “give” you, the less likely you are to find it yourselves. And that’s by design. Leftists believe Big Daddy Government is the sole provider of all things good, nice, and, well, joyous. The more Leftists get you to believe that, the more likely you are to support them, which helps them perpetuate their power and money bases.
And the less likely anything really positive will get done. After all, government isn’t in the problem-solving businesses because a problem solved is a revenue and power source lost. But as long as they get you to believe the Left will fix things if given enough time, money, and power, they don’t care!
I’ll be interested to see how long the Harris/Walz joy offensive will work and if it will evolve or get tossed aside once Trump/Vance start landing rhetorical punches. At some point, Harris/Walz is going to have to stop talking about joy and start talking about policy, and that time is coming soon. With a matter of weeks left before Election Day, the joy offensive is going to have to give way to substance.
And no amount of joy can hold back the hands of time.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since current Vice President and (hopefully) future unemployed politician Kamala Harris announced she would be running for President instead of President Brick Tamland, a lot of people got excited. Mostly…white Leftists. Using Zoom calls, white Leftists of both genders (and, yes, there are still only two) showed up to proclaim their love for the Vice President and urge others to join with them to make her the first female President of the United States.
For the sake of brevity and not to give these folks more traction than the Harris campaign…I mean the mainstream media have given them, I’m going to refer to them as Whites for Harris. And the more we dig into them, the weirder it gets. And hopefully the funnier it gets.
Whites for Harris
What the Left thinks it means – white people supporting Kamala Harris because they believe she is the best candidate for President
What it really means – Leftists whose motivations for supporting Kamala Harris are more personal than political
White Leftists are an odd bunch, and being a recovering one myself, I can attest to that. Of course, I was weird before then, but that’s not important right now. On the one hand, white Leftists see themselves as the only ones who really know what’s going on with minority populations. Not because they put in the effort to understand the struggles of people who don’t look like them. That would be too much work! Instead, they just feel they know what minority populations think and feel by virtue of…being Leftists.
Of course, this runs counter to the other hand: white Leftists are ashamed of being white. They bear it like a cross, which is odd when you consider how anti-religion some of these same asshats are. Regardless, they think they owe it to minorities to overcome their privilege and do whatever they can to accommodate these minorities.
And, yes, it’s just as cringy and ass-backwards as it sounds.
But not nearly as cringy as the Zoom conferences themselves. Yes, they did manage to raise a lot of money for the Harris campaign, but they also managed to make white women and white men look worse than they think they already look. I would say the jokes wrote themselves, but they were the jokes.
Although they think their hearts and wallets are in the right place, white Leftists have a more personal reason for playing second fiddle to Harris: they’re looking for absolution. To them, being white is an unforgivable sin. To those of us who actually think about this shit, it’s fucking stupid. Being ashamed of your skin color because you lack melanin is like being ashamed of having red hair and freckles in a family where both are commonplace. You can’t control what you’re born with, so it’s Socialist Socialite levels of dumbfuckery to feel one way or the other about it.
But it’s the guilt that makes white Leftists such easy prey for the Harris campaign. All they have to do is encourage white Leftists to open their wallets, canvas neighborhoods, and commit to doing whatever they can to get Harris into office, white Leftists get to feel like they’re erasing their racial debt. Of course, it’s only a fraction of what whites need to do to make up for past misdeeds, but it’s a start.
And here’s the funny part. Not funny for them because they don’t have a sense of humor, but funny for the rest of us. No matter how many hours or how much money they donate and raise, it will never be enough to absolve white Leftists for being, well, white Leftists. There will always be another atrocity to atone for, another injustice that must be made right, another sin to be forgiven.
But remember, kids, Leftists are super smart. Just ask them. And they’re totally not in a cult like those MAGA Trump supporters!
Yeah. And I have farmland in Antarctica I’d love to sell you.
What’s more, this approach isn’t new. Oprah Winfrey used to make white women feel bad about themselves only to have her swoop down like Black Jesus and “solve” all the problems she convinced them they had. It became like a cult of personality, only the personality in this case was of the media variety. And with the way the media is hyping up Harris it’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself and she becomes Oprah 2.0.
Only without a book club, unless you count coloring or comic books.
The Whites for Harris movement can best be described as using racial guilt as a means to get a vastly underqualified and unpopular woman into a job she was never elected to do. Remember, Harris has received zero votes in two Presidential races so far, and the only reason she’s a shoe-in for the nomination is because the Democratic National Convention appears to have decided to give her the nomination in spite of the lack of delegate votes for her.
The protectors of democracy, ladies and gentlemen.
If you happen to be a White for Harris and you’re reading this, you’re being played for a sucker by someone who will keep moving the goalposts so you will continue to get played. Even if you’re convinced Kamala Harris is the only person who can stop Donald Trump, you have to wonder if it’s because you actually believe that or if you think you do so you feel good about it. If it’s the former, more power to you. Just know I’m going to be mocking you for it with all the compassion of a honey badger on PCP. If it’s the latter, I’m still going to mock you, but with the added knowledge you’re a sucker. And since you are, I have farmland in Antarctica I would love to sell you.
But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I have a catchier name for Whites for Harris, and it’s one that I’m sure will help foster good will between whites and minorities as well as acknowledge the role whites have in this election.
Try Honkies For Harris on for size!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Political attacks have been around since, well, pretty much since this country was founded. Whether you’re accusing your opponent of being a practicing homo sapien who consorts with thespians or the press of being nattering nabobs of negativity, the slings and arrows of outrageous soundbites are the country’s second favorite past time, with the first being wanting to speak to the manager.
This election cycle is no different. But this time, the big negative statement making the rounds is…”weird.” Donald Trump is weird. JD Vance is weird. Republicans are weird. Even Barron Trump is weird.
I didn’t say it was a good negative statement.
weird
What the Left thinks it means – an effective political slam that accurately describes the Right
What it really means – a lame-ass insult that is designed to create a false dichotemy
Recently, I got into a brief political discussion on Facebook (because I’m not cool enough to get on real social media) regarding Vice President and presumptive Presidential usurper…I mean candidate Kamala Harris being less possible than an STD. The Leftist who responded to me tried to convince me otherwise because she raised a bunch of money and got a bunch of people to register to vote. After I countered it with facts, she replied “You live in an alternate universe.”
And to Leftists, I do. And most likely, you do, too.
This is because the Left has it in their collectivist heads they are the normal ones. Of course, this flies in the face of, well, normality, but what do you expect from a group who thinks there are 948 genders, men can get pregnant, and they are protecting democracy from fascism by being fascists?
Although it’s fun to mock the idea of the Left shitting on the weird, there’s actually a purpose behind it. By painting the Right as weird, they are subtly trying to paint themselves (and consequentially their viewpoints) as normal. And they’re serious about it, if the 6’8″ man in high heels and gaudy makeup who wants to be called Loretta G. Hotpants is any indication. To the Left, the weird shit is their normal and they want everyone to agree…or else!
Yep. Totes normal.
The problem is what the Left is trying to pass off as normal really isn’t. And I’m not saying this as someone who mocks the Left with the regularity of someone on a Metamucil and Colon Blow diet. All politics and humorous asides, well, aside, the Left is into some really freaky shit and it’s getting harder to lay a guilt trip on us for not dancing to their tune. At some point, you freak out the normies to the point they say “Enough.” Or “Get the fuck away from me!” You know, whichever.
Guess what, Leftists. You’ve reached that point and gone well beyond it. And no matter how you try to dress it up as normal, it ain’t.
That’s why the move to paint the Right as weird isn’t going to work. Yes, there are things Donald Trump, JD Vance, and others say that make me cringe, but more often than not, they represent what most Americans believe. Read that again. Americans, not just Republicans.
In case you Leftists are confused, let me spell it out for you. If you freak out normies, you tend not to win their votes, no matter how much you try to convince them the other side is the weird one. How do you plan to save democracy if you can’t win more votes?
I mean aside from fabricating more votes than humanly possible, that is.
But that would be election denial, and we can’t have that. It’s not like I’m Stacey Abrams, after all…
To their credit, the Trump/Vance campaign is striking back at being called weird by pointing out the obvious. Although it does have the potential to come off as deflection, which is what the Left wants us to believe is happening, it doesn’t completely work on that level. I mean, it’s hard to call the Trump/Vance ticket weird when your side looks like freak show rejects, but if you think you can pull it off, go for it.
Where I think the Trump/Vance campaign could handle the “weird” label better is with a tactic Trump has used in the past: savage mockery. Point out how juvenile the label is. Come out and say, “Is that the best you can do? I’ve been insulted better by worse people.” (And, Mr. Trump, if you wish to use that line, call me and we can work out a deal. I might even throw in a few more pointed zingers since I think I’m pretty good at them.)
And that’s really all you need to do. Leftists hate to be mocked, and taking their “weird” declarations with all the seriousness of a dedication in a coloring book would stick in their craws like nothing else. Or make it a two-fer and ask them if they’ve exhausted their “fascist” budget for the campaign and have to resort to weak-sauce shit that went out of fashion in elementary school. And, believe me, calling Trump/Vance “weird” is the mixed-drink-at-a-really-cheap-strip-club of political insults. It’s the mayonnaise of digs. It’s unremarkable, grating, and generally underwhelming.
Or, to put it another way, it’s the Kamala Harris of negative campaign messages.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week has been a bit on the wild side. I’m not talking 80s Motley Crue backstage party wild, either. I’m talking Alex Jones debating Art Bell while doing mushrooms and truck stop speed with Gary Busey wild. Or as Mr. Busey calls it, Tuesday.
Former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump was wounded by an attempted assassin’s bullet while at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. As events unfolded, questions arose surrounding how such a security clusterfuck could have happened, and a lot of fingers pointed at the Secret Service. You know, the people who are supposed to protect the President and Presidential candidates?
Well, Leftists are starting to call criticisms of the Secret Service (especially of the female Secret Service agents at the scene) “right wing attacks,” which caused my Spidey-Sense to tingle. It was either that or my dandruff shampoo, but I’m going with the Spidey-Sense angle. And it also gave me the inspiration to dig a bit deeper.
the Secret Service
What the Left thinks it means – a band of men and women devoted to protecting the President under any circumstances
What it really means – a group of men and women who may be politically compromised
The Secret Service started in 1865 as a means to curtail counterfeiting after the Civil War. Originally under the umbrella of the Treasury Department because, well, counterfeiting, it was moved into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, which isn’t a good thing in this humble blogger’s opinion. Regardless, the Secret Service’s role has evolved into what we know today and into a few areas we don’t consider.
When it comes to protecting the President, they succeed far more than they fail, even investigating threats or potential threats before they can escalate. So, it’s thankfully rare when they err. When the Secret Service does its job well, we don’t see them. When they fuck up, we do because it’s not exactly easy to hide when the President gets shot at.
Or in this case, a former President and potential future President.
Whenever there’s a high profile scandal, one of the first things people do is look at those in leadership to see if there are any decisions that affected the outcome. For the Trump assassination attempt, we can look to Kimberly Cheatle. And, Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!
In the aftermath, politicians are taking a closer look at the failures and what could have caused them. Based on what is coming out right now, there appear to have been staffing issues that spread the protection thinner than it should have been. Even though the Secret Service is pushing back against allegations the Trump campaign were denied additional security, it’s kinda hard to take it seriously after they initially blamed local police for the failures and noted safety concerns for Secret Service agents because of…get this…sloped roofs.
Yeah. These assholes are totally cereal, guys.
And, as with most things in Washington, DC, demands will be made, but nothing will get done. Yes, I realize this is both cynical and jumping the gun, but given how previous fuck-ups have been swept under the rug, I have more faith in 3 day old gas station sushi than in anybody involved being held accountable, least of all Ms. Cheatle who may have gotten her job because of Dr. Jill Biden, wife of President Brick Tamland.
If this is even remotely true, it would explain a lot when it comes to the failures. With President Tamland looking weaker than Joy Ann Reid’s grasp on reality, the possibility of Vice President Kamala Harris having to take up the reins and making President Tamland look lucid in the process, and Donald Trump picking up steam, there is a vested interest in letting things slip a bit to keep the current Administration in power. Not to mention, the Left has ramped up the hate, making Trump sound more and more like a real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of TikTok videos.
Of course, I’m sure the super-heated rhetoric from the Left has nothing to do with someone wanting to shoot Trump. That would just be silly! I mean, it would take a really dumb person to believe saying mean things about a politician and his or her party would lead to violence.
Oh, by the way, Steve Scalise is on line 1.
Either way, the Left is circling the wagons (as well as the drain) around the Secret Service, using the same playbook they used when it was the FBI caught screwing up in the Left’s favor. They paint the criticism of the female Secret Service agents attempting to protect Trump as misogynistic, even after footage came out showing such an agent struggling to put a gun back in a holster. They brush off calls for Ms. Cheatle to step down, instead presenting her as a defiant leader.
All to protect the agency responsible for nearly bungling their way into the history books as the ones who let a major party Presidential candidate get whacked. Fucking brilliant!
Regrettably, I can’t help but feel the Secret Service has been infected with the same ideological biases that still fester in the FBI’s ranks. Support who you want, but don’t let it affect your job. When you let your hatred of a man overrule your better judgment, it’s time you hang up your black suit and tie, kids. On the other hand, if incompetence instead of hatred caused you to make mistakes that could have cost a candidate his life and actually cost two people theirs, you shouldn’t wait to get fired. You should resign in shame.
But that would require having shame, wouldn’t it?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In the aftermath of President Brick Tamland’s horrible debate performance, Leftists and the media (is there an echo in here?) have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. At least Bill Clinton isn’t involved or else it would be between a rock and a hard-on. Anyway, media types find themselves on the horns of a dilemma: continue to carry water for the Left, or actually do some reporting to confirm what we’ve been seeing for, oh, the past several years.
The latest victim, if you can call him that, of this dilemma is George Stephanopoulos, former White House Communications Director under the aforementioned Commander in Briefs and current lapdog…I mean journalist for ABC News. His crime? Answering a question about whether President Tamland could serve another four years. This got Georgie Boy in some hot water with his bosses, who demanded he clarify what he said and apologize for…and I’m not making this up…jeopardizing his and the network’s objectivity.
I’ll let you stop laughing before I continue.
Anyway, the Left is now concerned with appearing objective after spending decades not giving one tenth of one shit about it. Say, might that be because they’re covering up the fact they’ve been slobbering over President Tamland’s every move until he screwed the pound, let alone the pooch? Naaaaaaaaah!
So, let’s take a deep dive into objectivity and why the Left sucks at it.
objectivity
What the Left thinks it means – balanced reporting of the facts without emotion, which means not feeding the narrative of the Right
What it really means – balanced reporting of the facts without consideration of ideology
Back when I was young and stupid, I wanted to get into the journalism field. Not for the money because, well, there isn’t any in journalism, but because I wanted to be someone who could uncover the hidden truth. And as I went along in my studies, I grew more and more enamored with the romanticized ideal of what a reporter should be.
Then, I got to graduate school and heard an editor from a local paper say it was impossible for reporters to be objective. To say it blew my mind at the time would be an understatement. After years of having objectivity pounded into my young brain, here was someone in the journalism field telling me it was all bullshit (a position this person held years after the initial proclamation).
It was also around this time that a certain popular Democrat President started to wow people in the press, which made it easier to get them to slob on Slick Willie’s knob.
And I hope to all that’s holy it was only figuratively.
Granted, the press wasn’t completely objective in the 1980s. They made subtle (and not-so-subtle) jabs at Ronald Reagan during his tenure. Ironic, given how the press is covering President Tamland, but that’s a blog post for another time. Once the media threw up its collective hands and said “objectivity is impossible,” the blending of political ideologies and hard news was complete.
And journalism went in the shitter.
Then, with the advent of “reporters” like Taylor Lorenz, the shitter is the highest modern journalism can aspire to be.
Fortunately for the media, people let them slide because they still retained at least some credibility from being seen as legitimate news sources. No matter how much they shit on Republicans, conservatives, or anyone who isn’t them, people tended to give the press the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who disagreed with the idea these DNC stenographers were calling balls and strikes was written off as a partisan crank. Even when the alleged crank was an insider.
And guess who came along to fuck it all up. Donald Fucking Trump.
Trump made it possible for people to rip on the lack of objectivity in the media, not to mention the out-and-out partisan lying. From that point on, the Left couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who was calling out their bullshit. Oh, and pissing off PETA.
The problem the media face right now can be traced back to when they decided objectivity was impossible. By choosing sides, they started eroding the veneer of honesty previous generations built, but at least they got to hang out at all the cool kids’ parties. Because that’s far more important than not being lapdogs to people you agree with politically.
By the way Leftists and media folks (there’s that echo again), that was a joke. Much like Taylor Lorenz’s reporting only intentionally funny.
What isn’t so funny is the implications of how media silence or out and out denial of President Tamland’s deteriorating mental condition. The larger scale implications are easy enough to pick out and bad enough as it is (a cardboard cutout of the President would be better suited mentally to be President), but from a journalistic standpoint, it’s pretty bad. If these journalists who are supposed to be reporting the news knew about this and stayed silent, their credibility should be fucked more than a porno star. This is a legitimate news story, but apparently our intellectual betters thought it might worry us too much to think our President has the mental capacity of a turnip, so they kept it to themselves.
At least, that’s the explanation that would make more sense than their sudden realization President Tamland is on the intellectual downside of a hill on the world’s tallest roller coaster and plummeting rapidly. Their feigned surprise only worsens the issue, an issue that would never have happened if they had been…objective.
The thing is objectivity isn’t as impossible as the Left and the media (I must be writing this from the bottom of the Grand Canyon) make it out to be. Yes, we all have biases and perspectives we bring into any situation, but objectivity doesn’t require you to not have them. It requires us to overcome them to provide as many sides of an event as possible. Of course, Leftists have made this impossible in recent years by taking the attitude no one outside of their intellectual gangbang has a valid point of view, so all they hear is what everyone else in their bubble hears: Leftist squawking points. That’s all well and good if you’re at a political rally, but it’s shitty when you’re in the news business.
The sad part is I’m not sure the media are ready to have a conversation about the place objectivity has in modern journalism because newsrooms have become mini political rallies of a sort. There are still a handful of reporters out there calling balls and strikes, but they’re few and far between compared to the multitude of dimwitted half-baked bloggers or social media “influencers” who call themselves reporters. The fact ABC News made George Stephanopoulos retract his statement (made while he was off the clock, by the way) shows how far down this rabbit hole we’ve gone. What ABC News did under the guise of maintaining objectivity is bullshit incarnate. If they were really concerned about objectivity, they would have been out front with the President Tamland story before everyone else, given it a fair treatment, and let the chips fall where they may. You know, like journalists used to do?
But something tells me ABC News was more concerned about getting invited to dinner parties and keeping access to the President than in telling the truth.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After a particularly disastrous performance in any venture, there are usually two groups of people: ones who reflect, retool, and try again, and ones who point fingers trying to find a scapegoat. This past week, CNN got a load of people from the Left doing the latter after their debate between President Brick Tamland and Donald Trump.
Well, unless you want to go with the idea Donald Trump zapped the President with an energy weapon that made him look like, well, himself.
And this Leftist dumbfuck wasn’t the only one. Leftists all over the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter came up with any number of excuses, but the general consensus was CNN fucked President Tamland.
And now we’re going to see why that is quite possibly the shittiest take ever.
CNN
What the Left thinks it means – a cable news network who is in the back pocket of Donald Trump
What it really means – a once and hopefully no longer DNC stenographer
I know I’ve gone over some of this stuff before, so I’ll keep it brief. When CNN first went on the air, it was a media marvel. A 24 hour news channel that you could tune in to any time of the day or night and get caught up on the day’s events. It was novel and changes the face of news forever.
Over time, though, the novelty wore off and they had to start generating buzz (and revenue) somehow. And, let’s face it, Bernard Shaw Is My Daddy t-shirts weren’t exactly flying off the shelves. Then, the first Gulf War came about and CNN got a whole new set of eyes on it. And with those eyes came a feeling of invincibility. No one else could do what they did as well as they could do it. They were Kings and Queens of the Mountain.
Which made them cocky and sloppy. Over time, their on-air talent and their talent behind the scenes started letting their political biases creep into the product. And eventually, the network started being called the Clinton News Network after its mostly favorable coverage of President Bill “I Don’t Know Where My Pants Are, Why Do You Ask?” Clinton.
And if you thought CNN wanted to slob Slick Willie’s knob, watching them cover Barack “I Don’t Know Where My Balls Are, Ask Michelle” Obama would make even the most tenured sex worker look positively virginal.
Put simply, CNN is in the tank for the Left. So, it boggles the mind how the Left could even consider CNN to be on Trump’s side. Even the two moderators of the Trump-Tamland debate were on record as being critical of the former President. And in Jake Tapper’s case, that criticism was rather pointed. So, when they handled the debacle…I mean debate with a fairly even tone, I was honestly surprised.
And apparently so were the Leftists. They wanted Tapper and Dana Bash to fact check Trump on the spot instead of letting him say what he wanted. (No word yet from these same Leftists if they wanted the two to fact check Biden in the same manner, by the way.) But there’s one tiny problem with that approach: they were moderators, not fact checkers. And after the Candy Crowley debacle in 2012, I would think Leftists wouldn’t want moderators to let their masks slip that much.
This change from being a reliable Leftist media outlet to something closer to centrist is by design. Recent leadership changes within CNN signaled a move back towards the straight news reporting they were once known for while allowing for a narrower focus on prominent news stories. While still not quite as centrist as some would say CNN is, they’re at least acknowledging there’s room for improvement.
Which, of course, makes Leftists lose their collectivist shit.
The thing is it’s frightfully easy to be a Leftist media outlet. All you need to do is find a way to keep money rolling in since you’re preaching to the same choir night after night. CNN used to be able to do this, but with the advent of MSNBC on the further Left and Fox News on the Right, it found itself trying to appeal to both sides and making nobody happy.
Why, it’s almost as if alienating potential audience members is a bad fucking idea!
So, from a business standpoint, CNN moving closer to the middle is fiscally responsible. Whether people still see it as a viable news source is yet to be seen. And judging from Leftist reactions to even the slightest move to the right of Trotsky, it didn’t go over well.
This is for a couple of reasons. First, Leftists suck at basic economics. Second, they tend to look at things through an emotional lens (which helps explain the first point). And third, Leftists hate anything that removes even an iota of power from their grasp or exposes their ideology to ridicule.
Enter President Tamland’s debate performance, which is less of a disaster than a Hindenburg movie by Michael Bay written by Tommy Wiseau. Although I would pay good money for Wiseau to make a cameo just to say “Oh hi-drogen!”
You can stop booing now.
Since Leftists are less capable of admitting a mistake than The Fonz, immediately CNN became the primary reason President Tamland looks like, well, himself. Of course, the real reason Leftists attacked CNN for Tamland’s disaster is not that they went out of their way to make him look bad, but that…they noticed he looked bad and didn’t come to his defense. They tried to do some damage control after the debate by fact-checking Trump and Tamland, but the damage was done. Tamland looked frail, confused, and without mental clarity. But at least we beat Medicare, amirite?
And after weeks and weeks of denying it, CNN among others had to admit President Tamland was not firing on all cylinders. Or maybe on any cylinders, for that matter. No more “cheap fakes.” No more deep fakes. No more right wing talking points. The Emperor had no clothes, but maybe had on adult diapers.
I have my issues (or subscriptions as the case may be) with CNN, but I have to defend them here. They didn’t cause President Tamland to look bad, and that’s even with all the preparations he did prior to the debate (including going to the debate stage). He’s just that bad of a candidate this time around, and no about of finger-pointing is going to change that.
So, to any Leftists reading this, lay off CNN. It’s not their fault your side decided to run a Strom Thurmond body double in 2024. You had your chance to pick someone else, even with the knowledge he was getting as sharp as a Nerf ball on the regular. It’s your fuck-up, so enjoy the ride.
And as for CNN, welcome to what conservatives and other non-Leftists have experienced for decades! Don’t worry. We have drinks, snacks, and more open-minded people than the Left. And what’s more, we validate parking!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It wasn’t a good week for Leftists, especially one Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York. In spite of an…well, unintentionally hilarious rally with the Socialist Socialite prior to Bowman’s primary, he lost by 17 points to his opponent, George Latimer. Who knew being actively anti-Semitic in a city with a sizable Jewish population would work against him?
I mean aside from anyone with a functioning brain.
That brings us to Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri, who is trailing her primary opponent by a slim margin. In an attempt to hold her role in the Squad and explain why her fellow Squad member went down harder than a fishing lure throat lozenge, she went all Cynthia McKinney and blamed the Jews, and more specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC as the hip kids call it. Surely, such a group must secretly be working with the GOP to unseat the Squad because Rep. Bush said so!
Well, Rep. Bush, the truth is a lot more complicated than you think, but as a favor to you, I’ll try to dumb it down so you can keep up.
AIPAC
What the Left thinks it means – a corrupt Far Right lobbying group that has turned Democrats and Republicans into Jewish sympathizers
What it really means – a bipartisan group that may want to reconsider its donations going forward
To hear the Squad and many of their fellow dumbasses talk, AIPAC is pure dag nasty evil. After all, AIPAC supports that pure dag nasty evil apartheid state, Israel! How can anyone with a shred of decency support such a country, especially within the boundaries of the US of A?
Yeah, that’s where things get complicated. AIPAC isn’t some right wing dark money group that targets anti-Israeli politicians. Their support list is quite bipartisan, including former Speaker of the House and current drunk around the House Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Ted Lieu. In fact, AIPAC has given more money to Democrat candidates and causes since 2018.
Oops.
Of course, we’re dealing with Rep. Bush here, who claimed to have healed people by touch alone through faith without any evidence. But Party of Science, kids!
Meanwhile back in the real world, it’s not hard to understand why the Squad has a hate-boner for AIPAC. Contrary to what they say (which is usually so dumb it makes Joe Biden’s last debate performance look positively fucking brilliant), they hate Israel and Jews at their cores. While previous politicians have done a good job at balancing their public beliefs and their private beliefs, the Squad are honey badgers: they just don’t care. When the Good Lord gave out fucks about Israel, the Squad asked for and got none.
Turns out they also passed on brains, but that’s another story.
The truly scary part of this movement against AIPAC is how rapidly it’s being picked up by fellow Leftists who share the same opinions as the Squad. As support for Palestine grew on college campuses, so did the hatred towards anything and anyone Jewish. That manifested itself in many ways, not the least of which being rhetoric that would make The Protocols of Zion look tame and rational.
And remember, folks, these are the assholes who will be running the country at some point.
This puts Democrats in a bit of a bind that no amount of kosher food and yarmulkes can fix. The embedded leadership is pro-Israel or at least smart enough not to let their true feelings slip in public. The up-and-coming politicians may or may not share those sentiments, but as long as they keep getting elected and reelected, at some point the balance will shift and AIPAC will become yet another part of the Vast Right Wing Dark Money Koch Brothers Fox News Donald Trump Conglomerate.
Of course, this further justifies AIPAC’s existence because they like to keep the relationship between America and Israel as good as it can be. So, when the Squad says and does the shit they do, AIPAC has a vested interest in defeating the Squad at the ballot box. With Bowman’s crushing defeat, that’s one down, too many more to go.
On the surface, this might give Rep. Bush’s comments about AIPAC some credibility. Yes, they did spend money to unseat Bowman, but did it have an impact? Not so much. Before AIPAC spent one cent on the Bowman race, internal polling data showed he was already down by 10 points. That grew to 17 points by April of this year. Although AIPAC could have had a hand in it, the more likely reason is…Bowman was (and still is) an unlikable asshole.
You would think the Left would have learned its lesson after their previous unlikable asshole Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. I mean, they are smarter than us. Just ask them!
To their credit, The Nation summed up the shitstorm Bowman created and why AIPAC isn’t to blame. And although I’m sure they wouldn’t like to be associated with me, I can’t find fault in some of their conclusions. In true Leftist style, they couched their factual observations with more predictable anti-AIPAC/anti-Israel squawking points that could have come straight from the Squad themselves.
Given this, AIPAC might need to reconsider who gets donations from them going forward. I mean, it’s bad enough to have Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu in Congress, let alone getting your campaign donation checks. But as bad as they are, they are going to be far better than who may replace them when the time comes. Aside from a few hard right cranks, most on the Right agree with the notion Israel has a right to exist and, thus, appreciate what AIPAC is trying to do. And considering the Right are the ones with easy access to weaponry, AIPAC could do a lot worse in the support department.
But the best part of the Squad’s anti-AIPAC rhetoric? It proves the political version of the Horseshoe Theory since the Socialist Socialite got some fan mail in the form of a message on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter from…noted but not that noteworthy right wing nutjob Nick Fuentes. Of course, the Socialist Socialite rejected his message, but if AIPAC can bring together two opposites like this, we should celebrate it! Hell, let’s make it a national holiday!
Call it When Stupid People Hate the Same Things Day!
The “Fix” Is In
To call President Brick Tamland’s performance during his first debate with Donald Trump a disaster would be an understatement of Godzilla-like proportions. And not the good Godzilla, either. I’m talking the shitty 90s version of Godzilla with Matthew Broderick that sucked ass.
Anyway, the Left is in panic mode and throwing out ideas on what to do from here, and one of those involves throwing out President Tamland off the ticket for 2024. As much fun and chaos that would ensue from this, I have to put on my conspiratorial hat for a bit to wonder if this wasn’t a plot to get the President off the ticket and find a replacement that would fare better against Trump.
At this point, I will warn you this is pure speculation on my part. I have no inside sources speaking on terms of protecting their identities and I’m not clever enough to invent such sources myself, so take what I’m about to say with as big a grain of salt as you want. Just make sure you take your blood pressure meds before you do.
Anyone with functioning eyes, ears, and brain can see President Tamland isn’t quite as lucid as he seemed to be in 2020. Part of this can be attributed to him being Methuselah with hair extensions. As we age, our mental faculties may take a bit of a dip. This isn’t always the case, but with the President, I think the dip is much more pronounced than it was a few years ago. And let’s not kid ourselves. Being the President adds years to your life, even after only a little bit of time in the position. If you take up the mantle, you had best be ready for the toll it will have on you.
Granted, I’ve never seen President Tamland as particularly bright before now. He’s always come off to me as a used car salesman with a broad smile, a welcoming demeanor, and the ability to schmooze his way into a deal that will leave you heaving off the lot in a rusted out Yugo with a transmission being held together by bubble gum, some chicken wire, and a blessing from the Pope. He’s definitely a people person, which will take you far in politics.
But this year, being Not Trump isn’t going to cut it.
Under the guidance of President Tamland, we’ve had severe inflation, an economy that can’t seem to make up its mind whether to be shitty or super shitty, and the bungling of issues here and abroad. His track record as President has been arguably one of the worst in modern history on many levels, so much so that we’re willing to give a convicted felon another shot at the White House because he doesn’t seem that bad compared to the dumpster fire we’re currently experience.
In political terms, President Tamland has served his purpose, which was to defeat Trump. If he did a couple of good things here and there, it was gravy. But now, he’s becoming more of a liability than Hunter Biden, and that’s saying something!
Here’s where the numbskullery…I mean skullduggery comes into play. President Tamland wants to be President again, not because he’s particularly good at it, but because he really can’t do anything else. The dude has been in public office for almost all of my life, and I am not a young man at this point. If he were to leave the White House voluntarily or otherwise, what could he realistically do? Teach a class on how to be a fuck-up and get paid big money for it?
By the way, I think that course is already being offered next semester at Harvard.
As a result, President Tamland has dug in his heels and refused to accept any advice to pack it in, retire to Connecticut, and regale his grandkids with stories about how Corn Pop was a bad dude. Early on in this election cycle, the Left were okay with it for the most part, aside from the usual rabble rousing from the Squad and other like-hiveminded Leftists. Even the media got involved and tried to downplay what we were seeing as nothing major. The President is as sharp as he ever was (see my previous comments about him and why that’s not a compliment). Anybody who says otherwise is ageist, a right wing smear monger, or out and out lying to you.
After the debate, these same folks were singing a completely different tune.
And that’s all part of the plan. Remember, President Tamland’s team set the ground rules for the first debate, so there’s a part of me thinking it was a set up from the jump. Even the people closest to the President have to have seen his decline, even if they don’t want to admit it. In order to keep their jobs in what they hope would be a Tamland-in-name-only Administration, they needed an out. The debate was that out.
And the best thing about it for them is it was a no-lose situation. If Tamland performed the way he did, they could make the argument he shouldn’t be the nominee anymore. If he did better than expected, they could run to the media and say “We told you so!” without missing a beat or raising even the slightest doubt as to his capabilities.
Now, thanks to President Tamland making Kamala Harris look brilliant, the door is wide open for new faces to throw their hats into the ring. And with the right amount of prodding, President Tamland might even step down of his own volition. A perfect solution to an imperfect problem right?
Yeah, not so much.
The current Democrat Party is a loose-knit coalition of special interest groups who are willing to set aside personal differences to achieve an ideological goal, at least in theory. In current practice, however, the party has more cracks than Hunter can smoke in a weekend. With morons like the Squad squabbling with the party leadership over candidates who don’t meet their progressive litmus tests, getting a new candidate to replace President Tamland is going to be daunting. And the rank and file are starting to agree more with the Socialist Socialite than Nancy Pelosi, which means the possibility of there being a political turf war that results in the nomination of a candidate nobody likes, but has to run to preserve democracy or some shit.
That means Kamala still has a chance to be the Presidential nominee!
This also opens up a lot of questions about the quality of candidates willing to step up and most likely lose. The only thing bigger than a politician’s closet full of skeletons is his or her ego. Any Democrat who decides to try to win the nomination is going to have to be able to deal with President Tamland’s fuck-ups in a way that doesn’t affect future potential runs. And with the bozos on deck, from California Governor Gavin Newsom to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, I’m not sure they have a viable Plan B. Their best course of victory might be to forfeit.
Or they could just run Hillary Clinton again.
Even after all of that, even if they find a candidate willing to be the whipping boy (or girl) to Trump, there may be convention headaches not related to partying with Nancy Pelosi. The way Democrats run their conventions makes as much sense as Calvinball. The states have delegates, but the party also has superdelegates who can override the will of the delegates. After all, we can’t have people actually affect who gets to be the nominee, amirite?
If there is a fight between a candidate chosen by the delegates and a candidate preferred by the superdelegates, there is going to be chaos on the level of a Michael Bay movie, possibly with fewer unnecessary explosions. Hopefully, the party leadership is smart enough to find a way out of this…I can’t even type the rest of that sentence with a straight face. If they were smart enough in the first place, they would have convinced President Tamland to serve only one term.
Now, we get a little further into the weeds, so I’ll try to be brief here. When there is a convention where candidates are voted in, there is a process that has to be followed. If there needs to be a deviation of that process, the majority body has to agree to it. Before any speeches are given or video montages rolled, there needs to be a vote. Otherwise, it’ll just be night after night of “Trump Bad!” So, you know, pretty much the entire Tamland campaign strategy to date. Without agreement, there can be no nomination. No nomination means no candidate. But it doesn’t mean we won’t get night after night of boring speeches that will only appeal to the faithful. I don’t foresee this part being a big problem under the circumstances, but it could still happen.
And perhaps the biggest headache facing Democrats if they go through with replacing President Tamland: state election laws. Each state sets up its own laws regarding how elections are run, how one qualifies to be on the ballot, and the like. And, yes, there are time limits to these things. If a candidate isn’t officially a nominee by the time these deadlines come and go (as what almost happened to President Tamland in Ohio), the states may have to revisit whether he or she qualifies to be on the ballot.
And guess which party controls the majority of the gubernatorial seats in this country. Can you say “Republicans,” boys and girls? I knew you could. Add into the fact many of these Republican Governors also have Republican majorities in their legislatures, there might not be a lot of leeway given to the potential Democrat nominee if it’s not President Tamland.
But simply, this is a problem that would make Rube Goldberg and M.C. Escher scratch their heads in confusion and disbelief. All because a man in serious mental decline wouldn’t take no for an answer.
Sucks to be you!