My home town, Flint, Michigan, has been in the news recently, and it’s been many decades since good news has come out of that city. Kevin Williamson notes the word that is rarely used in reporting on the story: “Democrat“:
We have a special problem in the United States, which is that the Democratic party is more of a crime syndicate than a political party, and it is deeply embedded in institutions ranging from the universities (where manufactured hate crimes and phony rape cases are used as political weapons) to the prosecutors’ offices (which bully law-enforcement personnel and file specious felony charges against politicians for such ordinary actions as vetoing legislation) to the unions (see California) and the schools. It doesn’t matter how many laws Hillary Rodham Clinton breaks, or how often she lies about it — the attorney general is a Democrat, and that’s that. Tom DeLay can be brought up on felony charges for allegedly having broken a law that wasn’t even on the books at the time he was said to have broken it (the case was eventually laughed out of court, after it had ended his political career, which was the point) but IRS criminal conspirator Lois Lerner is going to spend the rest of her days enjoying a fat pension at your expense.
And the media is complicit.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Blame the Chicago policy-shooting cover up on one-party rule.
Many tweeters have been blaming the Republican governor, calling for him to be thrown in jail and mocking his appeal for federal assistance. Funny enough, many have also been blaming him for destroying Detroit.
Worth noting that a serious Republican party would attempt to win -some- major city -somewhere- consistently.
Or, if you’re not, pound the “Why are Democratically ruled places cesspits?” question nonstop.
Just running serious races for positions in major cities inevitably leads to discussion of “Things Democrats do egregiously.”
The serious Republican party is busy attacking their base.
To the extent that today’s “serious” Republicans are conservatives (which I doubt very much), they certainly have no idea of what their “base” consists of. This is one of the better comments I’ve read on the subject.
I dunno. Rings kind of hollow to me. Sure, it explains, at least to some degree, Trump’s appeal to the base. But, I think it is very difficult to say that Republicans lost in 2008 and 2012 because McCain and Romney were “too conservative”.
I think it is more superficial than that. Or, rather, that the electorate is too superficial. McCain came off as a grumpy old man, prone to lame theatrics. Romney was too squeeky clean and boring. But, Obama was always hip and cool.
In our celebrity obsessed culture, Trump always had the inside track from the get-go. I always expected that to carry him to the nomination and to the Presidency. It helps that his competition is likely to be old and baggage laden Hillary, or grumpy old man Sanders.