At the American conservative Colin Pruitt laments that Conservatives will not embrace the anti-Biden chants at college football games giving them a cultural entrée to campus where they are treated as pariahs or Barstool that has pushed them:
It’s highly unlikely conservatives will embrace Barstool to the degree they should. Like President Trump, Dave Portnoy’s brash approach blinds observers to obvious lessons. But also, like Trump, elite conservatives won’t have to embrace Barstool. Their voters and their constituents already have. Americans know that their congressmen won’t stand up to Roger Goodell, and they know Republicans are more interested in defending their hedge-fund donors than retail traders. So, they’ve found a new and better champion. Love Barstool conservatives or hate them, they’re standing up and saying what everyone is already thinking.
Alas there is a much easier explanation as to why they won’t embrace the Barstool stuff in general and the f— Biden crowd.
They don’t see an effective way to monetize it for themselves
No cash for them and their consultants, not interested period!
Dick Tuck was a political operative I met in the 1970s in Washington, D.C., and I later reconnected with him in the 1990s in New York City.
During his years as a campaign aide to the Democratic National Committee, Tuck became Richard Nixon’s nemesis.
In 1962, Tuck worked for Pat Brown in the gubernatorial campaign that Nixon tried to win after losing the presidential race to JFK two years earlier.
At a fundraiser in Chinatown in Los Angeles, Nixon was confused when the guests started to smile during his presentation. Tuck had snuck in fortune cookies that read: “Vote for Pat Brown.” During a whistle-stop campaign, Tuck ordered the train to start moving in the middle of Nixon’s speech. Nixon even complained about Tuck in the infamous Watergate tapes.
Whatever the case, Tuck brought humor to campaigns—a device sadly missing in today’s venomous political scene.
Rand Paul brought back memories of Dick Tuck when the Kentucky senator brought some humor to Washington during a speech about wasteful spending.
To make his points, Paul displayed several poster boards about specific research projects that he said taxpayers would be astounded to know their tax dollars were funding.
Among the projects he highlighted were: $357,000 to study “Cocaine and Risky Sex Habits of Quail” and $1.6 million for researching “Lizards on a Treadmill.”
One poster board featured legendary singer Dolly Parton to highlight that Uncle Sam is spending $250,000 to send “kids in Pakistan to Space Camp and Dollywood.” Another claimed the National Science Foundation spent $700,000 to figure out whether astronaut Neil Armstrong said: “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” or “One small step for ‘a’ man.”
Paul said Americans might be alarmed by such frivolous studies, but it happens routinely “because we never vote for less money. It’s always more. Somebody’s got to point out that the waste and abuse of money goes on.”
Paul’s hilarious and poignant rant reminded me of U.S. Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin and his Golden Fleece Award, which he gave to public officials squandering public money in the 1970s and 1980s.
I hope that Paul continues the tradition of humor in politics, which seems far more effective than the vitriol we’ve seen in recent years.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar wants you to think her struggles to gain momentum in her presidential bid are due to her sex — and the bias of the American public.
The Democrat took a swipe at fellow White House contender Pete Buttigieg, who leads her, by saying the South Bend mayor likely wouldn’t have garnered the support he has — given his light resume (in her opinion) — if he were a woman. (…)
California Sen. Kamala Harris raised similar claims to explain her single digit showings in the polls, questioning whether Americans are ready to elect a woman as their commander in chief.
“Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?” Harris posited in an Axios interview in late October. (…)
And let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton has spent the years following her loss to Donald Trump trying to blame sexism and other character flaws among Americans for why she isn’t the first female president. Perhaps she’s forgotten she did get 3 million more votes than Trump. But thanks to the Electoral College, Trump outplayed her.
The writer doesn’t mention any complaints from Elizabeth Warren on the topic, and for a good reason; she’s polling right behind the front-runner — Joe Biden — as the potential Democratic Party nominee.
Okay, let’s pretend that America’s goose isn’t cooked if President Trump is removed from office or if he loses the 2020 election. Could you imagine being hectored and scolded for your “sexism” every time someone opposes a distaff President of the United States? I mean, it was bad enough being called racist for opposing the 44th president or for supporting the 45th.
What these women are doing is as old as the oldest profession: turning their deficiencies as candidates into someone else’s fault.
Some advice from the cheap seats: suck less, ladies. Suck it up, drive on, and quit your complaining. After all, your purses are still being filled and that’s something for which to be grateful.
The latest in the Democrat Party’s lowered expectations for People of Color™: now, they don’t even have to win an election for the party to choose him/her as its representative.
Stacey Abrams will deliver the response to President Donald Trump’s
Stacey Abrams
State of the Union address next week, giving the state’s top Democrat one of the nation’s most prominent pulpits as she considers whether to run for U.S. Senate in 2020.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday he asked Abrams to deliver the address, which will air shortly after Trump finishes his address to a joint session of Congress next week, because “she has led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything else.”
The speech will be a pivotal moment for Abrams, who narrowly lost last year’s gubernatorial race to Republican Brian Kemp and refused to formally concede the race, citing what she said was a vote marred by irregularities and his refusal to step down as the state’s top elections official.
Why Abrams? Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) and Ilhan Omar (MN-5) seem like better choices on the surface – they’ve actually won elections and all three allow the party to check the same two boxes that Abrams does: not-white women. Tlaib and Omar, of course, give the added benefit of being Muslims. (In fairness, Tlaib is only kinda Muslim.)
All that precious diversity at their fingertips but they forgo it?
It’s easy to see why none of them were chosen, though: no one will be able to control what they say in front of a national audience, especially not Nancy Pelosi. It’s entertaining to imagine Tlaib or Omar sign off with “Death to that Motherf****r Trump and to America” or Ocasio-Cortez with “God bless Socialist Utopia America.” Same thing, really.
And, call it a female hunch, but I bet each of them has told the Speaker of the House to her face that she can kiss their backsides or something equivalent.
Not that Abrams wouldn’t do that, too, were she in office. But she’s not and, therefore, she is much more apt to stay on the message outlined for her by the Speaker and by Senator Schumer. They need her, but she needs them much more. So, she gets the spotlight.
I’m sure that, during the response, the strings extending from her back will be well concealed.
Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here. She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 