Tag: kamala-harris

We Were Spared by the Latest Hurricane, But Kamala’s Interviews Did Cat 5 Damage to her Campaign (posted 10/11/24)

I’ll start today with a storm update.  Because Milton took a slight southern turn before landfall, our area in north central Florida got off easy, with winds just gusting into the weak tropical storm range, and less rain than had been forecast.  I never lost power, and with my wife and daughters out of state and my stalwart canine companion at my side, the storm was no more than a cozy night at home for me.

Even the storm-ravaged path across the state from Tampa to the Atlantic appears to have fared better than the worst-scenario forecasts, and although there are heartache and losses to contend with, the death count is much lower than we had feared.

As with past storms, Ron DeSantis continues to crush it in the “Great Governor” bidness.   He competently managed the pre-storm organization and warnings, and staged the resources to come in afterward and get power restoration and rescue missions underway quickly.  He also made a great statement re: any potential looters, which I roughly paraphrase as, “You loot, we shoot.”

And he sharply Hillary-slapped Que Mala’s pathetic attempt to play politics with the storm, and make herself look important.  She wanted to cosplay as a president and force him to drop everything to take her phone calls, and he rightly pointed out that he was busy, and that the only federal official that he should logically be talking to would be the president (if we had one) and a competent FEMA official (if we had one).

Speaking of Kamala, she’s had quite a week, hasn’t she?  She’s gone on what one media source called a “charm blitzkrieg” of media appearances.  Unfortunately for her, her efforts were about as charming as the original blitzkrieg in 1939.  (Carried out under false pretenses?  Check.  Leaving a trail of destruction in its wake?  Check.   Executed heartlessly but competently?  Yes and no.)

As I said in a previous column, I think the decision to have Kamala do a round of interviews – even if they are given to bootlicking leftist presstitutes – is strong evidence that her internal polling is looking lousy.  All competent leftist pols know how terrible she is at this, so things must be bad if they are risking it anyway.       

And holy cats, did she double and triple down on the banality and word goulash in all of her interviews!

The biggest one was the 60 Minutes shot with Bill Whitaker.  That one was bad enough even before we found out that the CBS hacks had heavily edited and “polished” what they showed.  (This practice followed the pattern the Dems used with Biden for the last several years: his ads and pre-taped appearances were always horrific, which meant that the unexpurgated outtakes must have been the rhetorical equivalent of a crime against humanity!)  

Whitaker actually asked her some legitimate questions, and several times – after she excreted a rambling stew of obfuscation – he followed up with a gently chiding, “Yes, but the question was X.”  He didn’t go after her as hard as he could have – or as hard as every MSM interviewer always goes after every conservative or GOP candidate or spokesperson – but the fact that he pushed at all was enough to pierce her wafer-thin veneer of non-idiocy.

He asked her repeatedly how she’d pay for her plans, and if she regretted opening the border and thus allowed a quadrupling of Trump’s number of illegals getting into the country, and why she’d changed her position on so many issues.  And each time he got a variation on the same response: a CAT-5 yammer storm.  (“People have hopes, dreams and ambitions; I was raised in the middle class; My background is in law enforcement.”)

The brainiacs on the View tried to go much easier on her.  (Unexpectedly!)  But even their softballs baffled her like a wicked splitter from Ohtani when he’s really feeling it.  Then Sunny Hostin asked her a question that she had to have expected: “Would you have done anything differently than President Biden during the last four years?”

Now every Dem pundit has been talking about this since they threw Biden under the bus and made Que Mala the candidate: she has to distance herself from Biden’s policies, whose popularity ratings fall somewhere between chlamydia and bestiality.  That’s a tricky tightrope to walk, but she absolutely MUST do it.

So how did Sophocles Harris start her disjointed mess of an answer?  “There is not a thing that comes to mind…”      

And at that moment, at Trump HQ, a top aide turned and yelled over his shoulder, “Cut that video, slap on an ‘I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message’ at the end, and air-drop it into heavy rotation in every battleground state immediately!”

When she taped an interview with the execrable Stephen Colbert later that same day, she still hadn’t come up with a passable answer for that question.  His variation on it was roughly, “How would you be a different president than Biden?”  And she started out with, “First of all, I’m not Joe Biden.”

And the entire land echoed with a million leftists simultaneously and violently face-palming themselves.

She also gave an interview to Howard Stern, for some reason.  On the upside, Stern is an unhinged, perverted crank, so he’s right in the sweet spot of her demographic.  On the downside, he recently said that he doesn’t just hate Trump, he hates anyone who votes for him.  In other words, he basically called half the country “deplorables.”  And you know how well that works in politics.

During the interview, Stern was a real voice of reason, claiming that “the sun’s literally going to go out” if Trump wins in November.  And if there is such a thing as a Pyrrhic compliment, he gave one to Kamala: “Yes, I’m voting for you, but I would also vote for that wall over there, rather than [Trump].” 

Ringing endorsement there, Howie: Kamala Harris and a wall would do an equally good job as  president.  I’ve got to give that one a grudging, “Fact check: true.”   

Finally, for the part of the electorate who finds Howard Stern too highbrow for their tastes, Kamala went on some sleazy sex podcast called “Call Her Daddy.”  I’d never heard of it – because I was raised right, and am not impressed by graphic vulgarity.  (Plus I’m old enough to admit that that kind of talk strikes me as extra gross coming from females.  Call me sexist if you must.) 

I could only think of two discussion topics that might make Kamala a good fit on that podcast: 1. The host could grill her on what techniques she used on Willie Brown to get her political career started in California. 2. They could talk about the many wonders of abortion.

They did talk about abortion a lot.  Because, surprise!  The sex podcaster with the sexual ethics of an alley cat in heat is a fervent abortion enthusiast.  (Unexpectedly!)

The low point was when the host asked her a set-up lefty question to the effect of, “Can you think of ANY law that restricts what men can do with their bodies?”  And the cackle appeared, along with the predictably brain-dead answer: NO! 

And for the thousandth time, I asked myself the question that is on everyone’s mind: How can this imbecile have any chance of getting elected president?!

No one should have to explain this, to anyone older than around 8, but here goes:  Laws regulating abortion aren’t aimed at restricting what women can do with their bodies—only the bodies of the baby they are carrying.  (Spoiler alert, for when you take 7th grade biology: a baby has different DNA from her mother, which is true about NO part of any mother’s body, ever, anywhere.) 

Besides, just about EVERY law restricts what men can do with their bodies!  A few target men exclusively or almost so (coercing participation in the draft during times of war; laws against rape, the vast majority of which apply primarily to men), but nearly all laws affect men as well as women. 

My fists are part of my body, and I cannot use them to punch irritating leftists in the face, no matter how much they may deserve it.  The same goes for my feet, my elbows and my knees.  And don’t get me started on my skull, which in addition to sheltering my national treasure of a brain, is excellent for delivering head-butts to deserving morons.

And yet, many laws prevent me from doing so, no matter how loudly I chant, “My forehead, my choice!” or “Keep your laws off of my cranium!”

White collar crimes are also done with the body – signing fraudulent checks, conning people with your mouth/voice – as are petty crimes like pickpocketing. 

And any crime with a jail sentence as a potential outcome – i.e. nearly all of them – necessarily restricts what men (and women) can do with their bodies, since it dictates where your body can reside, when you can exercise or eat and etc. 

So Kamala’s interviewers were sycophants, or dullards, or both.  And still she has gone 0-for-8 in interviews, demonstrating an uncommon knack for metaphorically screwing the rhetorical pooch in every situation.

We cannot allow this empty pantsuit of a candidate to get elected! 

One final note: Katie’s improvement has continued, and she will likely get out of the hospital this weekend. (Yes!)  Emily is safely in California for a short visit, and Karen and I will still be able to head to Maine and then Vermont on Sunday, to enjoy the company of some old friends, and of God’s creation, in the form of fall leaves around Lake Champlain.    

I won’t have a column on Monday, but I’ll be back at it when I get home.  Have a great weekend, everybody!

Hamas delenda est!

Riding Out the Storm, & What is Wrong With Leftist Men? (posted 10/9/24)

First, I’ve got a quick update on my family during this tumultuous week.  Katie continues to improve in the hospital in Denver, and my wife continues to crush her role as loving and supportive mom with her. 

However, my youngest daughter was booked to fly from her school in the storm’s path to CA on Thursday, for a long-planned visit with some of the friends she’d met in Boulder in the summer.  But since the winds in Orlando during her scheduled take-off were predicted to be out of the northeast at 110 mph, those plans had to change. 

So she flew to Denver yesterday, surprising Katie in her hospital room, in a moment that Karen caught on a video that is so sweet that I can’t share it with you for fear it will give you Type 2 diabetes.  She will spend a few days with sis and mom, before flying on to CA, where the only potentially troubling weather condition is chances of feces-and-dirty-syringe tumbleweeds blowing across the runways.

So Cassie the Wonder Dog and I are going to be hunkered down in stately Simpson manor during the storm.  Luckily for us – though our hearts go out to those in Tampa and the middle of the state – it looks like we are far enough north that we should be spared the worst of the damage, and may even get away with just a short power outage. 

Oddly enough, Karen and I were scheduled to fly to Maine on Friday, from where we were going to drive to Vermont with an old grad school buddy and his wife, to see some fall colors and decompress.  Those plans are up in the air, since my Friday flight was cancelled, and my wife is now trying to re-book so that she can fly straight there from Denver, and I can try to get up there to meet her on Saturday.

Thankfully, I’ve got political shenanigans to write about, to keep my mind off of the storms outside.  

First, when I saw some clips from the Vance/Walz debate, I came across a moment that I hadn’t noticed.  The moderator asked Walz a rare, pointed question, about that time when he told the compelling story of his being in Hong Kong when the Chicoms started murdering free-speech advocates in Tiananmen Square.  (You don’t have to ask which side Wolz was on, sadly.) 

Except that he was in Nebraska then, and only arrived in Hong Kong several months later.

Walz tried to take a page out of Harris’ Big Book of Debate Tactics, and blather.  I’m not sure why it didn’t work for him like it did for his running mate.  Perhaps because he’s neither non-white or a female, which have both been very useful for Kamala. 

She used her gender to get her first important jobs in California politics, and as a political shield to miraculously cover and compensate for her manifest unfitness for high office.  And MSM figures have lined up to point out how all criticism of her is sexist and therefore illegitimate.

She’s basically a vagician, is what I’m saying.  And hapless Tim Walz is not. 

He began his answer with a variation of Que Mala’s “I was raised in the middle class” gambit.  To wit: “I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, [in a] town of 400.  A town that you rode your bike with your buddies ‘til the streetlights come on.  And I’m proud of that service.”

He meandered on for several hundred words without approaching an actual answer (a la Kamala), and the moderator actually followed up, pointing out that he hadn’t answered the question.  Whereupon he melted down into one of the worst moments in a very weak debate for him.

But I initially overlooked that first part.  He referred to riding bikes around in a small town to some sort of “service,” of which he seems inordinately proud?!

I’m used to politicians fluffing up their resumes, and Wolz is certainly expert in that skill.  He’s bragged about serving as a teacher and a coach, serving in the National Guard – right up until that would have involved serving in a war zone, at which point he severed himself from that particular service – and serving in Congress and the MN’s governor’s office.

But if riding bikes around small Midwestern towns until the streetlights came on constitutes “service,” I may have to nominate myself for a whole raft of medals.  Because I served six or seven summer terms on a three-speed Schwinn (for which I’d like a Congressional Medal of Honor), which also involved many skinned knees and various bruises (three Purple Hearts, please). 

I also dispatched many pop bottles and cans with a pellet gun.  So I think that at least a bronze star and an infantry sharpshooter badge are in order. 

But I never completed the requirements to become a Command Sergeant Major, and I never stood beside a skinny Chinese hero while the tanks of a murderous socialist dictatorship bore down on him. 

Then again, neither did Tim Walz.  (And as Tampon Tim will tell you, one man’s socialism is just another man’s, “You die now beneath tread of tank, enemy of state!!”) 

Walz is as phony as Kamala’s stories about her deprived childhood.  (“We had to burn mom and dad’s PhD diplomas to keep warm in the harsh Montreal winters, and I had to steal chicken nuggets from my childhood McDonald’s job, just to keep the family from starving!”) 

And only a non-binary far-leftist with fluid pronouns could mistake Walz for a traditional Midwestern male.  Because dressing up an off-putting socialist in a ball cap, flannel shirt and coach’s whistle doesn’t make him an alpha male.  It just makes for a hilarious costume for him to wear at Halloween.

Speaking of caricatures of authentic masculinity, I can’t be the only one who’s noticed the Democrats’ recent weird dysfunctionality on the subject of men and masculinity, can I?

The most flamboyant examples are the many deeply confused trans and trans-adjacent eccentrics in their ranks. They seem to love themselves some gender dysmorphia sufferers, from Biden giving an interview to obnoxious Dylan Mulvaney (a 27-year-old male who identifies as a 13-year-old girl), to Richard/Rachel Levine (a 60-something divorced father who identifies as Captain Kangaroo’s more successful sister, Admiral Kangaroo), to Sam Brinton (the bald guy with garish lipstick in a job involving nukes, but who identifies as a serial luggage thief).    

But it’s not just that.  They’ve also had great difficulty putting forward male candidates whom average voters might consider to be regular men.  And I’m not talking about Mayor Pete, who disappeared for months of maternity leave after not having a baby. 

I’m talking about effete candidates like Beto “Beta” O’Rourke and Ken-Doll Newsom, as well as the afore-mentioned Tim Walz, who has to be the only volunteer football coach in America who also has an unhealthy fascination with putting tampons in boys’ bathrooms and starting transgender clubs in local high schools. 

(For a guy who obsessively threw around the word “weird” about Trump and Vance, he would be well advised to grab a Shakespeare concordance and search for the phrase “doth protest too much.”)

Which brings us to perhaps the oddest of an odd bunch: Doug Emhoff, the “second gentleman” who aspires to be the first gentleman, despite being no kind of gentleman at all.      

Our laughably corrupt mainstream media has been trying mightily to portray Emhoff as an admirable figure and – maybe even a heavier lift? – as a wildly attractive man. 

I’m not making that up. Leftist WaPo columnist Catherine Rampell wrote a glowing opinion piece in which she called Emhoff the “embodiment…of modern female fantasy,” and a “progressive sex symbol.”   She doesn’t dwell exclusively on his appearance – her main argument seems to be that she’s turned on by a man who “prioritize[s] his wife’s ambition over his own.” 

But then again, she does call him “a hunk” and a “dreamboat,” and suggests that Ryan Gosling should “move over,” because here comes Fabio Emhoff.  (Okay, I made up the “Fabio” part.  But that’s the ONLY part I made up.)

I’ll admit it: I am the last one who should criticize anyone else’s looks.  I broke my nose multiple times in high school.  I’m what they call an Illinois 6 (and that translates to a Florida 3) at BEST.  I’ve never heard the whisper of multiple female undergarments simultaneously dropping to the floor because I enter a room.

But look at 30 seconds of any recent interview of Doug Emhoff.  Listen to his voice; note his affect; take in his visage.

If THAT guy is a “hunk,” I’m Brad Pitt’s ruggedly handsome cousin. 

And while I’m too much of a classy and refined gentleman to ask female friends what kind of libidinal effect they experience when looking at Doug Emhoff, I’d be willing to bet that “severe v*ginal dryness” would appear on the medal stand of their responses. 

Perhaps I’ve said too much.  Maybe his strong character makes up for any less-than-optimal physical characteristics.

Annnnnnndddd… NOPE!   His first marriage ended because he impregnated a nanny who taught at their children’s school.  Which is not exactly first-ballot “Great Husband Hall of Fame” material. 

But it gets worse, because nobody has been able to find any trace of the child.  The most likely conclusion is that the baby was aborted, and unnamed sources report that Emhoff paid the nanny a six-figure settlement and got her to sign a non-disclosure agreement. 

(Remember that time when Trump paid Stormy Daniels and had her sign a NDA – with no pregnancy or abortions involved – and the left wanted to imprison and possibly execute him for it?)     

But hey, everybody makes mistakes, and maybe the nanny-banging was a one-time—

NOPE.  Because the story recently came out that he was at the Cannes film festival in 2012 when he saw his girlfriend talking to a valet.  So he slapped her in the face so hard that it spun her around. As one apparently does, if one is a progressive sex symbol.

I mean, how else is she going to learn not to talk to valets?  

Seriously though, what is wrong with these people?  And what is wrong with the media who cover for them and fawn over them?         

If it’s not Nina Burleigh offering to service Bill Clinton just for keeping abortion legal, it’s Catherine Rampell writing a heavy-breathing “50 Shades of Gross” article about the dreamboat nanny-banger.  “He supports women!”  (Yes.  Because after you slap them so hard, you’ve got to support them with both hands so that they don’t fall down, and make a scene on the red carpet.) 

“He supports abortion!”  Yes.  The guy whose nanny has an extremely inconvenient pregnancy is a big abortion fan.  UNEXPECTEDLY! 

After watching Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and Kamala, et. al., I know that the powerful leftist women in the Democrat party are pretty terrible.

But their men might be worse!

Hamas delenda est!

Israel Still on a Roll, + Advice for Trump (posted 9/23/24)

In my first two columns last week, I made a case for why Trump should try to take on Kamala in one more debate.  In my other three columns, I focused on Israel’s amazing technical feats, including blinding the Iranian ambassador with science (ear worm!), and converting thousands of Hezbo pagers into pocket-sized Elvis impersonators (“We’ll take your hand/ we’ll take your eye sight, too/For we’re Mossad/and we’ll have revenge on you!”)

Boom!  Double-ear-worm paragraph, right out of the box!

Oh, wait! 

“Last Tuesday, all the Hebrews seemed so far away,

Now it seems they’re in Beirut to stay,

Oh I regret…last Tuesday. 

Suddenly, I’m not half the thug I used to be.

All my friends are calling me Lefty,

That phony page, came suddenly.”

That’s an ear-worm stand-up triple to start the week.

The good news is that Israel is still on a roll.  No, they haven’t pulled off their next sneaky tech masterpiece yet – I’m betting on either exploding K-cups (the “k” is for “kaboom!”) or else chemically re-engineered breakfast cereal (in the bowl they look like normal Frosted Flakes, but add milk, annnnndddd… Shrapnel Flakes!) (“Theyyyyyrrrrrrrreeee Grape[shot]!”)

But they did execute a Friday airstrike (9/20/24) that collapsed a building in Beirut on 12 senior Hezbollah commanders.  How spoiled am I by the wizardry of Operation Pin-Point Pager on Tuesday? 

So spoiled that when I heard that the IDF flattened the Hezbollah Dirty Dozen in a conventional airstrike, I thought, “Borrrrrinnng!”

And just in case any CNN hacks are reading this, of the 12 ex-terrorists now being spit-roasted by Satan, one was named Abdul, but there was also one Abdullah, one Abu, two Husseins and three Hassans.

[engage Hans Landa filter] That’s a BINGO! [end Landa filter] 

And I didn’t even have to use the free space on my “Smashed Jihadis” bingo card. 

How would you like to be a terrorist Hezbollah member right now, even assuming you weren’t badly wounded last week?  You can’t call your fellow scumbags, you can’t page, you can’t text, you can’t radio.  And now you can’t talk in person! 

The best their propagandists could do over the weekend was to make the scary announcement that Hezbollah is now calling for “a new phase of battle!”

I’ll bet they are, since the last phase was the “Getting Your Cojones Blown Across the Lebanese Countryside” phase.  I should think they’d like to put that phase in the rear-view mirror.

Except that they can’t adjust the rear-view mirror, since their mirror-adjusting hand has been blown off.  And it wouldn’t do any good anyway, because during two-fer Tuesday, they lost both their hand and their eyes, and thus can’t use any kind of mirror. 

So that’s the good news. 

The bad news is that there has been no movement on the “Trump should debate Kamala” front, though I’m still holding out a faint hope.  I think she’d be stupid to debate Trump again, because she’s so vulnerable, and she may well win by hiding for 6 more weeks. 

But because I know that she could do so much worse than she did in the debate, and that Trump could do so much better than he did, I’m still hoping it could happen. 

Even if it doesn’t, I’ve still got some advice for Trump that would work well in a debate, and also in future interviews, since his interviews with MSM “journalists” are basically hostile debates anyway. 

I know I’m far from the only one to comment on this, but I’d love to see him make more specific claims, instead of defaulting to making bombastic/exaggerated claims, and vague ones – often at the same time.  Both of those allow his opponents easy opportunities to refute him.

The exaggerated claims can be discounted because they can be factually refuted.  Ex: “We’re winning by a lot,” (when he’s winning within the margin of error); “We had the best economy the world has ever seen,” (there are so many ways to measure that, and one indicator or another can always be cited to show stronger performance in some other historical period). 

In the debate he said (roughly) this about immigration: “Biden didn’t let in 10 million, like people say.  It’s more like 21 million.  In fact, I’m sure it’s more than that.” 

As is often the case with Trump, he’s far closer to right than the Dems are.  If they’re admitting that 10 million have come in, you know there are a ton who got in without being caught or counted, and they’ve got every incentive to keep their estimate on the low end. 

But if Trump is going to cite a stat, he needs to back it up with a source… and it’s never a good idea to undermine your own statistic!  “It’s more like 21 million… it’s probably way more than that?”  Which is it?  It looks like you’re just picking a number out of your AOC, and that’s not a good look.

The histrionic claims are mistakes too, because they cannot be fact-checked or supported, and because he throws out so many that it’s easy for many persuadable voters to start discounting everything he says. 

Consider the impact of this example:

Kamala says she’s going to do everything possible to bring down inflation.  (And yes, it’s a lie, and she’s the one who caused it, and etc.)

Option A: Trump responds with, “Under Biden-Harris, inflation exploded!  No one had ever seen anything like it.  I left them perfect inflation and the best interest rates in 100 years, and they blew both through the roof.  People didn’t think such a thing was possible, but they did it.  They destroyed the economy with their skyrocketing inflation and interest rates.”

Yes, Trump’s basic point is true.  But by not giving any numbers at all, and piling bombast upon bombast, he makes it too easy for anyone not already in his camp to either tune him out or disbelieve him.

Option B: “The day I left office, inflation was 1.4%, and it had averaged under 2% for my entire term.  Biden-Harris and a Democrat congress pushed through $4.7 trillion in extra borrowed money in the mis-named ‘Covid Relief Bill’ and the ‘Inflation Reduction Act,’ and within 16 months inflation had exploded to a peak of 9%.  Today it’s still 2.7%, which is almost double what she inherited from me!  That shocking inflation spike forced the Fed to raise interest rates; when I left office the 30-year mortgage rate was 2.65%.  Today it’s over 6%, meaning that a $220K mortgage that used to cost you $778 per month now costs you $1297!”

It’s easy to refute glittering generalities, but how can she (or some MSM hack) refute or distract from statistics like those?  I guess she could say that he’s making up those numbers, and she doesn’t believe him, but that’s only setting herself up to get pantsed, when he comes back with, “The interest rate numbers are from the Federal Reserve, and the inflation rates come from X government agency.  If you don’t accept those numbers, what numbers would you cite instead, and from what source?”

Trump has a great story to tell, and the Dems and the MSM – but I repeat myself – are doing everything they can to keep him from telling it.  He spent too much of the middle of the first debate helping them. 

He’s been doing better at many events since then, and I’m really hoping he takes one more shot at her in a debate, and uses the opportunity to tell his story, and destroy hers.

If she chickens out, he should hammer her on that in every speech and appearance.  And then he should treat the MSM drones who interview him as if they are nothing more than a platoon of little Que Malas.

Because they are.

Hamas delenda est!

Some Thoughts & Advice on Debates (posted 9/16/24)

Over the weekend I gathered some more good news stories, but I’m going to hold off on those and post them in a Wednesday column, because I’ve had the more serious subjects of debates on my mind.

As I started drafting a “debate” column, however, it kept getting longer.  And since the only repeated quibble about my columns is that they are too long – you know who you are, and how dare you! – I’ve decided to give you one column per day for today, Tuesday and Wednesday.

I know: it’s like Christmas in September!  And you’re welcome.

To start with an example of why this column got too long and must be broken up: I can’t even get into my thoughts on debates without first quickly pointing out the funniest story of last week, which happened when A-WOLz was giving what seems to have become his usual stump speech – no substance, no policy, lots of Trump-smearing and pseudo-“I’m a Midwestern dad/coach/military hero” blather. 

But in the middle of the dishonest boilerplate, he made the most Freudian of all Freudian slips.  (That’s when you say one thing but mean your mother.)

He started telling a positive story about Kamala, but instead of describing her as a “young prosecutor,” he called her a “young prostituter.” 

I’d give that reference a “chef’s kiss” of approval, but that sounds like it could be a veiled reference to Que Mala’s Willie Brown days.  And because I’m not up on my California leftist sexual slang, I’m going to leave that one alone.

But it’s still funny!  And before you can say it, I know: let’s not act like children.

Okay, on to debates – both last week’s, and in general.

I’m very happy that five days later, the shameful tongue-bath that the MSM gave to Que Mala has done her no good, and may even have hurt her.  The over-the-top leftist moderators’ bias did not gain her any of the independents she needs, and even though Trump displayed some of his less pleasant attributes, his essential Trumpiness – for good and ill – has been so baked in that it doesn’t seem to have hurt him at all.   

Kamala’s empty and evasive answers have not gone unnoticed, either.  Perhaps the most explosive post-debate development is the report from an alleged ABC whistleblower that Kamala had the questions given to her before the debate.  That is shocking to me!

Not because the idea of corrupt leftist media types cheating for the Democrats is shocking – does anybody remember Donna Brazile giving Cankles McPantsuit the questions before the debate in 2016?

No, what’s shocking is that she could have performed like THAT, even though she had the questions beforehand!  The first question was, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

I wrote about her 330-word verbal dumpster-fire of an answer a couple of columns ago.  I pointed out how awful it was, and how she never came within 100 nautical miles of answering that rote question, which she should have been able to anticipate anyway.

But if she was GIVEN that specific question ahead of time, and had a week of intense “debate camp” to prepare, and THAT was still the best she could do?!  Sweet, merciful crap!

In tomorrow’s column I’m going to throw out some ways I think Trump can and should negotiate conditions for another debate with Kamala, because no GOP candidate should ever do a 3-on-1 cluster-schtup like last Tuesday’s “debate” again!    

But since CO posted a great question yesterday – “Which candidate needs a second debate more and why?” – that elicited thoughtful and varied responses, I thought I’d first give my answer.

And remember that while you obviously have a God-given right to disagree with me, you’re just going to make yourself look ridiculous.  So c’mon, man. 

(Why do I kid?  That’s right: because I love!)

While it might be too strong to say that Trump NEEDS a second debate more than the Cackler does, and he does need to negotiate conditions for a second debate carefully, he should definitely do a second debate.   

Because this election is way too close, with polls in nearly all the battleground states within the margins of error. There are some reasons to believe that Trump is doing better than the polls are showing – his numbers were underestimated in pre-election polls in both 2016 and 2020, and he’s doing better with blacks, Hispanics and independents than any Republican (including him in ’16 and ’20) has ever done, which should mean that he’s leading overall.

But there are also reasons to believe that Que Mala will do better than her polls indicate, primarily because of the depth of the Trump hatred that will motivate the other side to vote no matter what, and the well-known Dem fraud efforts (ballot harvesting, resisting voter ID, hinky drop box and vote by mail usage, etc.). 

We all know that Trump needs to win by enough to exceed the margin of Democrat fraud, and as close as this looks now, I’m not at all confident that he’s ahead by that much. 

So he should debate her again, for two types of reasons why – the first pragmatic, and the second philosophical. 

Let’s look at the pragmatic ones first: Kamala was as good as she could be in that debate; Trump can do much better than he did in that debate; and the moderator (if any) will be MUCH better than Muir and Davis.   

1. Kamala did as well as she possibly could… and she still wasn’t good!  Even with the moderators running interference, her vague and rambling answers left her vulnerable, time and time again.

In fact, most voters have no idea that Kamala did a solo interview with a local Philly ABC anchor on Friday.  It was a pre-recorded softball-fest with a sympathetic MSM lackey, and she STILL screwed it up.

She even repeated her first gaffe from the Tuesday debate; when the reporter asked, “What are your specific plans to bring down prices?” she launched a verbal death march of an answer with, “I grew up a middle class kid…”

You would think that after a presidential candidate went all this time without giving a press conference or a solo interview, this sit-down would have been heavily covered everywhere.  But it got nearly zero MSM attention, and for the obvious reason: she completely blew it.  (I know, but let’s not act like children.)

The more voters get to know her, the fewer votes she’s going to get, so she’s going to do as few interviews as possible. And when her best chance is to hide, and a debate with Trump involves total exposure, he should debate her, and hammer her if she won’t.       

2. Trump can do much better than he did in the first debate. While his first 20 minutes and closing statement were solid, he did pretty poorly in between, and I believe that he can learn from a painful lesson that is this fresh: don’t take the bait and get distracted, and stick to the specific facts on the issues!  (Melania should attend, and if he brings up crowd sizes or Haitians eating cats, she should walk on stage and kick him in the groin!)

On this point, he’s also got a great template to follow, provided to him by his strong VP choice.

I’ve been very happy to see the way JD Vance has handled himself over the last month.  He’s given over a dozen media interviews to MSM hacks, and he’s “won” every one of them, to one degree or another, by doing exactly what I’ve been talking about.  He doesn’t take their bait, but calls them out on the bias and distortion in their questions, and then doggedly advances his arguments.

His interview with Dana Bash yesterday was a great example.  If you haven’t seen it, you should watch.  (But make sure you’ve got an empty stomach, because she is absolutely nauseating.)  She “pulled a David Muir” – which sounds like a double-entendre, but I don’t know gay slang, and I don’t mean it that way – spending a ton of time talking up the “Haitians are not eating cats!” angle, coming back to it repeatedly, and making herself look totally obnoxious to anyone who’s not an all-in, far leftist.

JD parried her efforts well, doing the minimal amount of defending the constituent reports, and pivoting constantly back to the substance of the immigration issue, which Dana desperately did NOT want to talk about.  

Because the elephant in the room re: Springfield is the horrible results of the flood of illegal immigrants there.  And no, I’m not suggesting that the Haitians are eating elephants now! 

But only because there is no zoo in Springfield.

HA! 

(And that is why I’m cut out to be a harmless smart-ass, sniping from the comfortable environs of stately Simpson manor, and not a major-party political candidate.)

Where was I?  Oh yeah.

The main point of the story – which is horrible for the Dems and Que Mala, because it is entirely their fault, and incredibly unpopular throughout the country – is the cascading catastrophe caused by millions of illegals: hundreds of billions redirected from services for American citizens, increased crime, strains on schools and hospitals, etc.   

The best way to distract from that obvious truth is the “Trump’s racist cat-eating Haitians slur” talking point.  So Dana did her repulsive best to continually try to sell what JD wasn’t buying.  

But Vance knows that there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.  (By the way, rumors that “More Than One Way to Skin a Cat” is the title of the best-selling cookbook in Port au Prince have NOT been confirmed.  So stop spreading them, people!)  And he beat her at her own game, and made her corrupt favoritism obvious.

3. The first moderators have been roundly lambasted by everyone, including many on the left, and EVERYONE not on the left!  Trump should be able to hold out for a better moderator — ask for Brit Hume and then Joe Rogan, and settle for Megyn Kelly maybe? – or even just a time-keeper who enforces time limits without interjecting otherwise.  But whoever he gets will be on notice that s/he can’t afford to repeat the level of corruption of Muir and Davis.

And even if they tried, the entire audience will be hyper-aware of that this time, and Trump can have some responses holstered and ready if they start going down that road again.

One suggestion, for the first time they show blatant bias: “I think it would make things easier if you just joined Kamala at her podium, so everyone in the audience knows where we stand.”

He could also be primed to respond to any of Kamala’s rote lies – fine people, bloodbath – if she’s desperate and stupid enough to use them again.  Just do the Reagan-esque, “There you go again,” and calmly point out the specific facts.    

Bottom line: Trump is a much better candidate than she is, and his track record is light years better than hers.  He’s an inconsistent debater, but she’s a consistently fragile and terrible debater.  And the optics of her challenging him to a debate that he refuses creates a lose-lose situation: it contradicts the reality that Que Mala is fearful and in over her head, and undermines Trump’s core brand as a bold fighter.

With this election still as tight as it is, I think it would be political malpractice for him to not take Kamala on in another debate.

Tomorrow I’ll discuss a couple of philosophical reasons Trump should debate her again, and suggest ways that he can negotiate a rematch that circumvents the pitfalls of recent debate formats.  

Hamas delenda est!

My Grades for the Debate (posted 9/12/24)

I’ll admit up front that I could only watch a few minutes live.  Because: blood pressure.  After it was over, I checked in on the coverage on the CO page and the Daily Wire, which is probably not the best way to process a debate, because it involves having your reactions mediated through the initial reactions of others. 

But over the last 24 hours I’ve watched nearly all of it, in smaller doses.  I say “nearly” because: blood pressure, still. 

But honestly, I’m so disgusted by Kamala and her MSM enablers – and so worried that the election is even close, and fearful of the horrible consequences should she win – that I couldn’t stand to watch more than the first few minutes live. 

If you’re a close reader, you will perceive my immediate post-debate frame of mind from the adjectives in the last sentence:  disgusted, worried, fearful.  I won’t be in that mode for long – I’m a toxic Midwestern male who was raised right, so I don’t do “fearful” and “worried” as a default setting – but this felt like an opportunity missed.

So I spent the actual debate hours as follows: I prayed for the country for a few minutes, then threw myself back into an “organizing my home office” project that I’ve been working on, and then watched the first half of the Lions/Rams Sunday night football game that I had DVR’ed.

I also spent part of the next 24 hours doing something that I find therapeutic when I need to burn off frustrated energy: working out.  I’m not a fanatical fitness person, but for the last six months I’ve been eating healthier and doing a daily free weights and pushup routine, and I tripled my routine after the debate. 

I may be fighting off increasing frustration over the election and our country’s future, but at least I’m starting to get some pecs out of it.  So I’ve got that going for me. 

Anyway, because my profession hard-wired me to give grades, I thought I’d grade the three debate participants: Que Mala, Trump, and the MSM. 

I’ve taken my grading system from Harvey Mansfield, a temperamentally conservative and actually great Harvard professor.  A few decades ago, Mansfield acknowledged the ubiquity of grade inflation – over 90% of grades at Harvard were “A”s – by giving his students two grades in his classes. 

He recognized that since all other Harvard profs were giving inflated grades, it wouldn’t be fair for him to give the authentic, actual grade that he believed students had earned, thus lowering their GPA.  (And likely ensuring that nobody would be taking his classes in the future!) 

So he started giving two grades: one inflated grade (which would appear on their transcripts, and was commensurate with other Harvard grades) and one “legitimate” grade, i.e. what he – with his old-fashioned, high standards! – believed the paper had actually earned.

So here are my debate grades:    

Kamala – her adusted grade (i.e. reflecting what semi-informed people who get their news from the MSM would give it) is a B.  Her legitimate (“Mansfield”) grade is a D-. 

She is an annoying liar, and she could no more get a passing grade than speak in an authentic black accent. (“Ah, ah say they-uh, Ya bettuh thank uh union membuh!”)  And she repeatedly gave her patented word salad answers to evade questions.  Example, from the FIRST MINUTE:  “Is the country better off now than it was 4 years ago?”   Legitimate answer: either yes or no, and here’s why. 

Que Mala’s answer?  It began with, “So, I was raised as a middle class kid….” And went on for – I Schiff you not – 330 words!  

For comparison, the Gettysburg Address is 275 words. 

I’ve read the Gettysburg Address.  I’ve taught the Gettysburg Address.  And Que Mala’s stream of consciousness rambling about her hardscrabble early years being born to two PhDs and raised on the mean streets of Berkeley and Montreal is no Gettysburg Address!

By the way, that moment was a missed opportunity for Trump.  As soon as the moderators came back to him after Kamala’s rambling answer, he could have said a variation of his line with Biden: “I don’t know what she just said, and I’m not sure that she does either.  But one thing is clear: she did not come close to answering your question, and we all know why.  You’re obviously not better off than you were 4 years ago, and Kamala and Biden are the reason.” 

I don’t know how many truly undecided voters are still out there, but if they exist, they had to see how dishonest and evasive Kamala was, and how annoying.  But she still gets the inflated B because, with the terrible moderators’ corrupt help, she managed to tone down her existential awfulness for 90 minutes and appear to be just an untalented, mediocre liar, instead of the worst politician of this century. 

Trump – his adjusted grade (recognizing that the MSM did everything they could to adjust it downward, as they always do) is a C.  His legitimate (“Mansfield”) grade is a B-. 

On substance and legitimate points, he won hands down, because he said a lot of true things (compared to Kamala, who said zero true things).  But those points were diluted by too frequent distractions.

He made some good points – he’s the first GOP pol I’ve ever seen nail a lefty with a pointed debate question on abortion (“Would you allow abortion at 7 months?”) – and landed some good jabs within sometimes over-long answers. 

A strong point was his closing statement, which should have also been his opening statement, and many statements in between: she’s in power now, she’s tied to Biden’s terrible policies, and every promise she’s making now is something she could have done over the last 4 years. 

His low points were the lack of message discipline, which even most of his supporters are wary of, IMHO.  Kamala threw out every bit of BS that she could to try to rattle him, repeating proven hoaxes (very fine people, J6 was worse than the Holocaust, etc.), and he took the bait way too often.  Frustrating!

One face-palm example was her dig at his crowd sizes.  Like everything else, this was a lie – Kamala’s crowds are smaller and phony, made up largely of bussed-in astro turf Dem hacks and union members – and Trump’s aren’t.  But that’s beside the point: crowd size is an irrelevant metric. (If his crowd sizes vs. Biden’s in 2020 were dispositive, he would have won by 30 points, even accounting for vote rigging and fraud). 

So arguing about crowd size is not just a waste of time and a distraction, but it connects with one of Trump’s negatives: his ego.  We all know that the national Dems are pathological narcissists with ginormous egos themselves, but Trump wears his on his sleeve, and it does not attract independents that he needs, to say the least. 

His smart answer would have been that every time she tried to bait him, he should have given a Trump version of Reagan’s head shake and grin, and, “There you go again.”  Which he could follow with a 1-2 sentence specific slap down, before returning to his policy arguments. 

Something like, “I know you’d like to divert us with childish distractions, and if I had your horrible record and failed policies – open borders that are hurting Americans all over the country, high crime, high inflation, record debt – I’d want to change the subject, too!  But I’m not going to waste Americans’ time on such desperate ploys, while the country is suffering from the Biden-Harris mal-administration.”

You know that Trump’s team had to have been coaching him to not take the bait, and it’s aggravating that after 9 years in politics, he still can’t reliably do it.  But that being said, since everyone knows Trump so well by now, I don’t think that that will seriously hurt him. But it’s a missed opportunity in a limited-opportunity environment.

The MSM “moderators” – Inflated grade, F minus.  Legitimate grade, F to the infinity of all minuses.

It’s often been said that we don’t hate the media enough.  But after Tuesday night, I’m getting there.   And may God have mercy on their souls. 

David Muir was a dishonest, condescending hack, as was Linsey Davis.  (I won’t comment on the well-known advice about how you should never trust someone named “Linsey” with no “d” in her name.  But she definitely proved that truism.)  

They made CNN look reasonable, which I wouldn’t have believed possible.

They did for Kamala what Kamala did for Willie Brown.  And they left that stage with the same amount of dignity as she had when she left his office, straightening out her clothes as if everyone in the outer office didn’t know exactly how her “climb the political ladder” plan was going.

This is not hard, people: YOU CAN’T HAVE PLAYERS FROM THE OTHER TEAM BEING REFS!  OH!  OHHHHHHHH!

(Sorry about that.  My keyboard is now intermittently defaulting to the Sam Kinison filter, and I’m having a hard time controlling it.) 

The bogus and constant fact-checking of Trump and gentle head-patting for Kamala was pathetic.

One way to counter that, for our candidates in the future:  When the first fact-check comes up, hit them immediately: “There’s no time for me to fully rebut that statement in this real-time debate.  But – [Here you give a specific evidential claim] – and I encourage everyone to do their own research on this point, and you’ll see that I’ve got nothing to hide, and I am telling you the truth.  My campaign site will have all the evidence, with supporting references, by the time this debate is over.  And when you confirm that for yourself, I know that you’ll remember who was lying to you just now, and why.”

In any case, one reliable conservative move for the last several decades (it has worked since at least Nixon) is to attack the bias of the press, and Muir and Davis gave Trump such a target-rich environment.  I so wish he would have taken 30 seconds to point that out!

For example, when they had fact checked him for the fifth time – often in distorted ways, and sometimes just flat-out wrongly – he should have started one answer with, “I’m going to answer your question, but I just want to point out that you’ve now fact-checked me (use some air quotes around that phrase) four or five times, and you’ve let Kamala lie way more times than that without doing the same to her.  People see what you’re doing, which explains how little you are trusted by the public.  Anyway, on to your latest biased question…”

One more note: I admire a lot about Trump, and desperately want him to win, and my analysis here is a little unfair to him, in one sense.  I’ve got time to analyze, and can apply “esprit de l’escalier” – the “wit of the staircase,” i.e. good responses/comebacks that you only think of as you’re leaving a party. 

Even though Trump had to know that many of Kamala’s false attacks were coming when he got to the party, the extent of the moderators’ wrong-footing him – even compared to past bad examples! – made his job a lot harder than ours is now, after the fact.

I think the Daily Wire post-debate panel got it mostly right: While this was something of a wasted opportunity for Trump, they don’t think this is going to fundamentally change the election.  It’s tight, and it’s likely to remain tight, and this debate didn’t change anybody’s mind about Trump (his Trumpiness has been baked into the cake for a long time now), nor about Kamala. 

They thought that Trump clearly won the first 25 minutes of the debate and the final statements, but that Harris’ taunting him on crowd sizes started him into a bait-taking mistake, followed by Muir and Davis turning in the sleaziest performance in the history of media whore-dom.  (I am paraphrasing slightly.)  

I don’t believe that Kamala’s handlers will let her do another debate, even though her side called for that.  (Purely as a feint, IMHO, because it momentarily makes them look confident.)   She’s an extremely vulnerable candidate, because she’s transparently dishonest and cloying, and also a dullard.  The fact that she survived one debate – yes, with the assistance of horrifically corrupt moderators – is the high-water mark of her political career, and she’d have nowhere to go from there but down.

(And okay, feel free to insert a Willie Brown joke here if you must.)

My main hope is that our side highlights the many instances of partisan hackery and lies from the moderators and Kamala, and then moves on to disciplined attacks on her and Walz, and that enough undecided voters see that and take it to heart.

Trump has his flaws, but he’s also got virtues, and you can’t say the same about Kamala.  She is a poisonous and inauthentic grifter, and we need to spend every minute and dollar between now and November bringing that before the voters!

Hamas delenda est!

Cori Bush is Gone, & What Do the 2 VP Choices Tell Us? (posted 8/9/24)

Let’s start with a little good news today: racial arsonist and professional mean-spirited dullard Cori Bush is out! 

Bush became the second Squad member – after Jamaal Bowman, the guy who despite being a middle school principal for years, never figured out how a fire alarm works – to get whipped in a Democrat primary.  Thus raising the collective IQ of the Democrat party, in both cases.

(But wow, talk about damning with faint praise!)

Bush reacted to her loss by hollering like a lunatic and blaming the evil Joooos!

Unexpectedly! 

Hilariously enough, she also suggested that, in the words of one media report, “she is no longer bound to the decorum of Congress.”  Because what word do you think of when you hear the name “Cori Bush?”

That’s right: decorum. 

She put it more colorfully, and more ungrammatically. “AIPAC, I’m coming to tear your kingdom down.  [All you did was take] some of the strings off.  They about to see this other Cori, this other side.”

We’ve seen all sides of you, Cori, and they all hideous.  (See what happened there?  If you listen to Bush for more than a few seconds, you begin to lose the ability to properly conjugate verbs.)  

So good riddance to bad racists.

Turning to another topic, I’ve noticed that the Walz pick is a kind of a funhouse mirror reflection of the Vance pick.  Both choices have some surface similarities.  Neither one was the most strategically smart pick, in that they don’t obviously (or at least potentially) add voters to the ticket, and they double-down on their party’s prez’s perceived image.

JD is seen as having similar strengths to Trump’s – quick on his feet, eager for a fight – with possibly a little more polish, and a counter-programming up-from-poverty biography.  I thought that popular VA governor Youngkin would have been a more balancing pick, increasing the chances of getting VA’s electoral votes, and introducing a less pugilistic and abrasive style that’s more likely to attract people who like Trump’s policies but not his personality. 

Walz, as widely discussed, is as far left as Kamala, and brings no new voters to the ticket, as opposed to Shapiro, who might’ve brought PA with him.  Shapiro was also perceived as more moderate – he IS more moderate than Walz, though that’s like saying Bernie Sanders is more moderate than Fidel Castro – and so could have reinforced the Dems’ and MSM’s totally dishonest branding of Que Mala as NOT the extreme leftist that she obviously is.

So each pick was a matter of “steering into the skid” for both Trump and Harris.      

But the VP nominees also have huge differences.

Vance is competent and smart, with an impressive resume and at least a logical means of appealing to votes Trump needs, via his blue collar background.  Walz’s record shows that he’s not competent, and after just a preliminary examination, his veneer of normalcy and accomplishment – football coach, teacher, hunter, long military career – crumbles to reveal something entirely different.

Vance also reflects who Trump actually is, whereas Walz undermines the messaging about who Kamala is. 

Additionally, look at the avenues of attack.  The left, digging as hard as they can, have found only three attack lines against Vance: the fake couch story, the childless cat lady comment, and the “weird” label.  The first is a proven lie, now admitted to by the leftist troll who wrote and posted the fake “excerpt” from Hillbilly Elegy that leftist liars are now repeating.  Because they suck.

The second is a pretty harmless joke, made in the context of supporting an essential behavior necessary for the survival of a healthy country: more people need to form stable households and have more kids.  

And the third is evidence of the left’s desperation, and a textbook case of projection.  Calling someone “weird” over and over again – sans any reasonable examples or evidence – is something you’d expect from a bunch of grade school bullies who are feral in the way that all creepy, peer-pressure-influenced cliques of kids can be feral.

Except that these creeps are highly paid, grown-ass adults with influential jobs.

To quote the late Joe Biden – What’s happened to that guy lately, by the way?  Has anybody seen him? – think about it:

If the left had any legitimate grounds on which to attack Vance, do you think they’d be resorting to this schoolyard, “He’s a weirdo!” taunting?  If Vance had been caught driving drunk at over 90 mph and then tried to get out of it by claiming that he was deaf, for example, do you think they’d be going with the mean “cat lady” joke? 

If he’d lied about his military service, or presided over riots and crime and population flight from his failing state, or supported hugely unpopular policies like destroying our borders or castrating children, do you think the “weirdo” label would be their main focus?    

Walz, on the other hand, has the glaring flaws mentioned above.  Plus, he’s the one who came up with the “weird” tag for Vance, but he is himself deeply strange. 

The guy loves communist China as much as Eric Swalwell likes Chicom honeytraps.  He picked the date of his wedding because it was the date of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (!), and he chose to honeymoon in that suffering country.  (Shades of Bernie Sanders honeymooning in the Soviet Union!  I don’t think it’s coincidental that these guys get aroused when in close proximity to a hugely powerful government oppressing regular people.) 

He’s creepily gleeful about letting confused kids who are either mentally ill or influenced by a social contagion to make permanently damaging sexual alterations to their bodies against their parents’ will. And his weirdo wife – he tried to give her a hearty handshake rather than a hug or kiss after his nomination, because who can feel amorous when there’s no weeping victims in a gulag nearby? – was giddy about BLM rioting and burning the property of others, saying that she left her windows open so she could smell the smoke from burning tires.

If THAT doesn’t scream “weirdo!” at you, your weirdometer is broken!

Speaking of wives, JD has an Indian wife – pardon me, “a wife of color” – and biracial children.  One leftist idiot on MSNBC – it was Molly Jong-Fast, but you’d need a program to be able to tell one moron from another on that network – claimed that his pro-child stance was actually a racist dog whistle, because he clearly only wants more white children. 

Which means that she either didn’t know who his wife and children are – in other words, she’s an incredibly lazy journalist — or she is weapons-grade stupid. 

Or, to be fair, possibly both. 

Since that pathetic smear attempt went over like a John Wayne film festival at a Liz Warren family reunion (#wemustneverstopmockingher), nobody on the left has mentioned JD’s family again, as far as I know. 

In summary, the biggest problem the Dems have with Vance is finding a legitimate problem with him to focus on, while the biggest problem the GOP has with Walz is choosing which of his massive liabilities to focus on. 

One editorial note: I keep spelling Walz’s name as “Wolz,” for some reason.  I had to correct it several times in this column, and I couldn’t understand why.

But then I remembered: it all goes back to one of the top 5 movies of all time, The Godfather.  The name of the movie producer who resists giving Johnny Fontane a lead role in an upcoming movie is Jack Woltz, and I think I’ve subconsciously associated his creepiness with whatever is off about Tampon Tim Walz.

On a related note, while it would be truly horrifying to wake up with a horse’s head in your bed, it would be much worse to be woken up by Que Mala’s horse laugh in your bed.

I don’t know how Willie Brown handled it.   

Hamas delenda est!

I Can’t Believe What the Dems Are Doing with Kamala (posted 7/24/24)

I’ve been lied to.  

Because I’ve been told that our tech overlords know everything about us, and that they’re spying on us through our cellphones, and maybe our fridges, and possibly our toasters. You can’t so much as mention that a certain Democrat pol has a ten-cent head and a juicy booty – her words, not mine (I mean, the juicy booty part.  I figured out that she’s got a ten-cent head all on my own, when she started to talk) – without your phone and computer being bombarded with pics of a Kardashian.

Or Emily Ratajkowski, whom I don’t even know.  (Well, I know NOW.)       

Anyway, those shadowy tech wizards are supposedly curating our entire lives, and feeding us only info that we already agree with or want to receive.

And yet I’ve already received two fund-raising ads in my feed just today, both of them from Que Mala Harris!  So I’ve definitely been lied to about our tech eavesdroppers’ ability to read our minds, because I’ve got to be the least likely person in this solar system to contribute to the campaign of Little Miss Cackle-nator.

However, it was fun to watch her ad, if only to imagine how many takes it took to finish it, and what her first take must have sounded like. 

“For only ten dollars, you can make a difference in getting me elected.  Just ten dollars.  Which is an amount of dollars. Ah-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha HA!  Right?  Each dollar can be exchanged for a dollar’s worth of goods or services.  Goods like electric school buses, and power points full of Venn diagrams.  Ah-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha HA!  And services like hiring a bunch of child actors to sit around and listen to my blathering about space and the moon, and act like I’m saying something substantive.

Anyway, your 10 dollars – a number that is not as big as Russia, or as small as Ukraine, and comes somewhere in between 9 and 11, which are also very numerical terms, right? (cackle cackle cackle) – can make a difference in November.  Which is the 11th month of the year, and one more month than the amount of dollars that I am asking you to send.”

I’m thinking that that’s the part of the first take when several of the tech crew loudly face-palmed themselves, one Dem pollster vomited on his shoes, another sat down mumbling, “We are beyond f**ked,” and the director yelled, “Cut!  Is Joe still around here somewhere?”

You might be asking, “Martin, I thought you asked us yesterday not to criticize or make fun of Que Mala until after the Dem convention, when she would presumably be locked in as the nominee?  And yet now here you are, eviscerating her in the hilariously genius-like way that we’ve all come to know and love.  What gives?”

Well, for some idiotic reason known only to God – you may remember Him as the Guy who moved Trump’s head out of the way of that bullet – the Dems seemed to have fallen in line behind Harris.  (And no, this is not the time for a Willie Brown joke.  In the words of a great future president, “Let’s not be children.”)

I really don’t get it.  The smart thing would have been for them to say a lot of supportive comments about Kamala (as honest as all the things they were saying about Biden being vigorous and super compos mentis 10 minutes ago), but leave the door open for a nomination battle at their convention. 

Then, after three weeks of Kamala assuming the role of president-in-waiting and making public appearances everywhere, they could see what her polls looked like.  And if the polls look like we all pretty much know they will, the Dem power brokers could rig the convention to put someone else in place.  

That’s what I thought they would do, when I noted 24 hours ago that some big leftist names were splitting into two camps re: whether Kamala should get the nod.

I guess they could still do that. But they are all signing off on her candidacy now, which will make them look much more bumbling and desperate if they reverse themselves again, after they crowned her as the nominee a day after Joe shuffled off his mortal coil, wearing his big ol’ waffle-stomper, shufflin’ shoes. 

Seriously.  They lied about what great shape Joe was in for four years, then he exposed them by breathing his last breath during the debate.  So then they jump on the Kamala bandwagon – and again I must remind you that I am far too dignified to make the Willie Brown joke that we’re all thinking of right now – and when her poll numbers look as bad as Joey Gaffes’, they’re going to push her aside and sub in ANOTHER Dem politician?!

Does that process – bailing from Plan A to Plan B and then to Plan C in a few weeks – suggest stability and competence on the left?  Or does it look like the live re-enactment of the old joke about four guys in a plane that’s going down because it’s overloaded?

(You may remember it from the pub scene in American Werewolf in London: When they realize that somebody needs to jump out to save the rest, the Brit says, “God save the Queen!” and jumps.  When the plane is still too heavy, the Frenchman says, “Vive la France!” and jumps.  When that doesn’t help, the Texan says, “Remember the Alamo!”… and chucks out the Mexican.)

But it looks like the Dems are going with her, so what do I know?  Still, just to be safe, if any of you are contacted by a pollster in the next three or four weeks, please say that you’re all-in for Harris, and you give her five stars, or two enthusiastic thumbs up, or multiple bedazzled Venn diagrams.  Whatever it takes.

By the way, it’s a huge red flag that her first official act – for the last time, I’m not talking about THAT “act” with Willie Brown, so get your minds out of the gutter – was deciding to snub Bibi Netanyahu.  That’s going to play well in Dearborn, with the ululating, “death to America” crowd, and with the Squad/jihadi caucus in the House, but elsewhere? 

Great job, Que Mala.    

Big Biden donor John Morgan might have said it best – by the way, hang your head in shame for giving that decrepit grifter money, John – when he claimed that, “Joe’s endorsement of Kamala is his f**k you to all who pushed him out. Be careful what you wish for.”  

If that’s true, I’ve got to say something that I never thought I would, seriously and without my tongue in my cheek: Great job, Joe! That’s a sweet move on your way out the door, because it gives all the lying hypocrites who stabbed you in the back a perfect dose of karmic justice. 

Don’t get me wrong, Joe: you’re all a bunch of political scorpions in an identity-politics bottle, and you all deserve each other, and the electoral disaster that I pray is about to descend upon your party.  Still, why should the rest of those rats be able to escape from the sinking ship they just tossed you off? 

But look at the bright side.  When Trump debates Que Mala and she opens up a whole word salad bar, you will be able to enjoy watching him re-use one of the lines that helped end your campaign: “I really don’t know what [she] said at the end of that sentence.  I don’t think [she] knows what [she] said either.”     

Hamas delenda est!