That’s a terrifying question for a Republican ticket that offers little beyond resentment, rage and a promise to restrict the freedom and democratic power of its opponents. It explains why Vance immediately began smearing Walz’s military record, claiming — without evidence, of course — that Walz had “abandoned” his unit when he ran for Congress before the unit was deployed to Iraq.I wish I could be more sure that voters will ever get a chance to hear the stolen-valor case about Walz, not to mention his positions on communism, COVID snitch lines, the benefits to schoolchildren of closing schools, genital mutilation of minors, full-term abortion, denial of care to babies who survive abortion, abandoning police stations to rioters who have their hearts in the right place and need space to vent, and raising taxes after quickly blowing through a large state budget surplus. Instead, Walz is a manly Mister Rogers! As the Bee said, Workers of the world, let's get together sometime for a potluck! Without evidence, of course. In any case, the evidence might violate community standards. Which is lucky for Walz, because he's enjoyed full political cover for years from a compliant Minnesota press, so he's feared nothing from exposure, and most of these positions are extremely well preserved in print and on camera. Not that that will matter much if a now-compliant national press simply memory-holes them and concentrates on his Presbyterian green bean casserole recipe. I've been reflecting on this. I'm fairly certain I don't need traditional gender and racial hierarchies to validate my life choices. Trump's family life isn't much like mine, but I'm still voting for him for the third time.
His what?
Walz's "manliness" is vewy scawy for Wepublicans. If a voter "doesn’t need traditional gender and racial hierarchies to validate his life choices, then what does he need Donald Trump and JD Vance for?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
“Without evidence” must be a sort of code these days. It is only used when there is clear evidence. In this case, actual proof!
Yes, and it is both infuriating and tiresome at the same time.
Two - or at the most, three - generations ago, only the boldest sort of scoundrel would have been able to say such a thing without hanging his head in shame.
"a promise to restrict the freedom and democratic power of its opponents" These assertions need to be confronted head-on. It is of course actually the Dems that want to "restrict the freedom and democratic power of their opponents" as can easily be shown. The response to such assertions should *not* be "well, voters care more about the economy." Some do care about liberty and democracy, and the Republicans have a much better story here which they need to do better at promoting.
They keep saying that Trump, Vance, Republicans, conservatives are frightened, terrified, confused by Harris, Walz, and who knows? Bowls of strawberries, maybe. Monsters under the bed. Clowns with spooky laughs. Do they really believe these things, are they just throwing things against the wall to see if anything sticks, or are they just trying to making these things come true by speaking them into being?
In the current Dem lingo, "freedom" means primarily abortion, with a side of allowing men into women's sports and women's bathrooms.
This cracks me up every time I scroll by it. Walz's manliness is so vewy scawy! Bugs Bunny couldn't have done better.
"Two - or at the most, three - generations ago, only the boldest sort of scoundrel would have been able to say such a thing without hanging his head in shame."
Thomas, good sir, they wouldn't have been able to do that without being challenged to a fight, probably, or at least shunned.
Post a Comment