I'm not going to link it in, as I think it's shallow on the solution, but pundit Ezra Klein has a current segment of his vlog in which he discusses how the Democratic Party is in such a mess, in spite of people really not being all that keen on Donald Trump's Fascist Roadshow, because they're really lost touch with average people at the street level. I've been saying the same thing now for what's approaching a decade.
Well, actually more like two, or more.
Anyhow, yesterday I ran this item which was sparked by liberal/center left blather about J. D. Vance hoping that his wife Usha become a Christian:
Lex Anteinternet: Religion, J.D. and Usha Vance.: Because this blog is steadfastly horrified by Donald Trump and his administration, it'd be easy to assume that it's run by a rampagi...
One of the things this event shows, quite frankly, is the degree to which the left holds religion in contempt. The fact that they so obviously hold religion in contempt is part of the reason that people who are serious about their faiths, and that isn't limited by any means to Christians, do not trust the Democratic Party and, as long as it continues, aren't going to trust the Democratic Party. As I warned would occur, this is leading to a massive exodus from the Party by Hispanics, who are largely Catholic. If you demonstrate contempt for people's existential beliefs, they're not going to vote for you even if you promise all kinds of nifty social programs.
They also are not going to vote for you if you show childish glee over a made up sense of morality over an event that doesn't mean anything.
As people who stop in here know, I really don't particularly know what to make of the late Charlie Kirk. I've expressed my views on that elsewhere and I'm not going to back into them here. As little as I know about Charlie Kirk, and that's not much, I know even less about Erika Kirk.
The widowed Erika Kirk has been in the news a lot recently, as she's sort of taken up the mantle of her late husband's organization, Turning Point USA. In that role, she's been very public and is making public appearances. She's drawn criticism for that alone, as apparently those generally on the left feel, even if they don't, that she should be dressed in widow's weeds and moping around the house or something. Quite frankly, if she was a figure on the left, the same people would be praising her for her bravery.
And now comes the embrace with J. D. Vance.
Vance was speaking at some Turning Point USA event. He's probably a good choice for that, as Donald Trump is 750 years old and most Turning Point members aren't. The populist right has to keep in Turning Point's good graces, moreover, as it's part and parcel of the Evangelical embrace of Trump, albeit one that wasn't initially certain about Trump.
Anyhow, Kirk made some comment about Vance and her late husband being similar. I don't see that at all, quite frankly. And then she went on to hug him after introducing him.
This is a big non event.
Indeed, if you see the whole video, the entire thing lasted just second from beginning to end. You can only really make it a big deal, if you desire to, by screenshotting the whole thing as if it was an endless romantic embrace.*
Nonetheless, the left has reached out in shock and horror, certain after Vance's recent comments about hoping his wife converts, that he's about to ditch her as Kirk and Vance are now a couple.
Oh horseshit.
This shows once again the degree of contempt for conservative views that people on the left hold. There's no evidence at all that Erika Kirk is happy that her late husband was murdered and has now moved on to Vance. There's no evidence at all that Vance would betray his wife. Indeed, as he is a Catholic, and is expressing a Catholic view on his desire that she also convert, the better evidence is that he'd never do that.
This is, again, the very sort of thing that causes people on the right to regard the left and contemptuous and mean. And that doesn't win votes.
Footnotes:
*FWIW, as an Irish American (and genetically, I'm more Irish than many Irish), with some Westphalian heritage, I'm in that category of people who abhor hugs from people I'm not extremely close to. By that I mean I'll accept hugs from my wife and children, and I'm uncomfortable with them from anyone else.
This is a real northern European thing. We aren't a touchy people, and any kind of physical contact of this type is an unwanted intimacy unless its a wanted intimacy, in which case, you're contemplating marriage. Out in society, however, this just ain't so.
I've known people, almost invariably women, who are very touchy and it means nothing at all. And for some reason, in recent years, it's become increasingly common. I used to work with somebody, for example, that would do this routinely, particularly if you were at any sort of a function and she's had a drink. She's latch on to an arm and not let go. I took up using my wife as sort of a shield to avoid that. Another female lawyer I know invariably will make physical contact. There I am sitting at a hearing when all of a sudden there's hands on my shoulders so that I'll say "hi". Couldn't you have just said hi?
To make matters worse, I'm 5'6" tall and that puts me way down torso wise on any woman who is inclined to hug me for some reason. If they're short too it's okay, but if they're not, it's really awkward.
Anyhow, a flap like this reinforces my desire to avoid that sort of thing. The irony is, the people complaining about this probably aren't bugged by hugs at all, and a lot of them probably aren't all that concerned about personal or sexual morality either.
_poster.jpg)
.webp)
_(3x4_cropped).jpg)
