If you want to hire a guest worker with a PhD, you have to pay $100,000 under new federal rules — unless you can get an exemption from President Donald Trump. If you want to sell prescription drugs made overseas, your customers will have to pay steep tariffs — unless, like Pfizer, you cut a

Imagine you are the president of the United States and have a difficult and momentous decision to make. This decision requires prudence and good judgment. You call on your closest advisers to help you make this decision, and this includes the vice president.

The vice president gives you his considered assessment of the situation and leaves the room. As you consider this advice, you try to assess how good a judge he is of various circumstances. Then you recall he said this:

In July, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) said, “We have his back” about President Joe Biden and then flatly stated, “Yes, he’s fit for office.”

It’s hard to imagine how anyone could think that Biden is fit for office, much less fit for another four years in office. Biden’s horrific debate performance in June was simply the most public display of Biden’s mental decline.

In the weeks after Biden’s debate performance, dozens of Democrats who had interacted with Biden described a man who was about as confused, tired, and mentally frayed as you would expect a man of Biden’s age to be.

Yet Walz met with Biden in July and stated that Biden was “fit for office.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So the questions for Walz, not that Walz or Vice President Kamala Harris take questions, are these:

1. Do you think it’s OK for the president to be constantly confused?
2. Do you think it’s OK for the president to fully function only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.?
3. Were you simply lying about his well-being because, as you said in that press conference, the only thing you care about is winning elections?
4. What are you lying about today in order to win an election?

Walz is either extremely dishonest or has extremely poor judgment (or both!). Harris tapped him to be her main proxy on the campaign trail and her main adviser in the presidency. That doesn’t reflect well on Harris.

2024-08-16 15:42:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3124037%2Fis-tim-walz-bald-faced-liar-does-he-have-horrendous-judgment%2F?w=600&h=450, Imagine you are the president of the United States and have a difficult and momentous decision to make. This decision requires prudence and good judgment. You call on your closest advisers to help you make this decision, and this includes the vice president. The vice president gives you his considered assessment of the situation and,

Imagine you are the president of the United States and have a difficult and momentous decision to make. This decision requires prudence and good judgment. You call on your closest advisers to help you make this decision, and this includes the vice president.

The vice president gives you his considered assessment of the situation and leaves the room. As you consider this advice, you try to assess how good a judge he is of various circumstances. Then you recall he said this:

In July, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) said, “We have his back” about President Joe Biden and then flatly stated, “Yes, he’s fit for office.”

It’s hard to imagine how anyone could think that Biden is fit for office, much less fit for another four years in office. Biden’s horrific debate performance in June was simply the most public display of Biden’s mental decline.

In the weeks after Biden’s debate performance, dozens of Democrats who had interacted with Biden described a man who was about as confused, tired, and mentally frayed as you would expect a man of Biden’s age to be.

Yet Walz met with Biden in July and stated that Biden was “fit for office.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So the questions for Walz, not that Walz or Vice President Kamala Harris take questions, are these:

1. Do you think it’s OK for the president to be constantly confused?
2. Do you think it’s OK for the president to fully function only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.?
3. Were you simply lying about his well-being because, as you said in that press conference, the only thing you care about is winning elections?
4. What are you lying about today in order to win an election?

Walz is either extremely dishonest or has extremely poor judgment (or both!). Harris tapped him to be her main proxy on the campaign trail and her main adviser in the presidency. That doesn’t reflect well on Harris.

, Imagine you are the president of the United States and have a difficult and momentous decision to make. This decision requires prudence and good judgment. You call on your closest advisers to help you make this decision, and this includes the vice president. The vice president gives you his considered assessment of the situation and leaves the room. As you consider this advice, you try to assess how good a judge he is of various circumstances. Then you recall he said this: In July, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) said, “We have his back” about President Joe Biden and then flatly stated, “Yes, he’s fit for office.” It’s hard to imagine how anyone could think that Biden is fit for office, much less fit for another four years in office. Biden’s horrific debate performance in June was simply the most public display of Biden’s mental decline. In the weeks after Biden’s debate performance, dozens of Democrats who had interacted with Biden described a man who was about as confused, tired, and mentally frayed as you would expect a man of Biden’s age to be. Yet Walz met with Biden in July and stated that Biden was “fit for office.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER So the questions for Walz, not that Walz or Vice President Kamala Harris take questions, are these: Do you think it’s OK for the president to be constantly confused? Do you think it’s OK for the president to fully function only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.? Were you simply lying about his well-being because, as you said in that press conference, the only thing you care about is winning elections? What are you lying about today in order to win an election? Walz is either extremely dishonest or has extremely poor judgment (or both!). Harris tapped him to be her main proxy on the campaign trail and her main adviser in the presidency. That doesn’t reflect well on Harris., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/tim-walz-white-house.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Timothy P. Carney,

If you are a faithful reader of the New York Times, you know about the “grandmother hypothesis.”

“When a young woman is burdened with a suckling infant and cannot fend for her family,” a New York Times reporter in 1997 noted about the Hadza people of north Tanzania, “she turns for support, not to her mate, but to a senior female relative — her mother, an aunt, an elder cousin. It is Grandma, or Grandma-proxy, who keeps the woman’s other children in baobab and berries, Grandma who keeps them alive.”

This asset, grandma, was unique to humans, some apes, and some whales. And it was incredibly important. Anthropologist Kristen Hawkes argued, in the New York Times’s words, that “prehistoric women very likely often survived past menopause, and that they were instrumental to the survival of their families. … Only with the ascent of the grandmother, she says, were human ancestors freed to exploit new habitats, to go where no other hominid or primate had gone before, and to become the species we know so well.”

“Evolution’s Secret Weapon: Grandma” was the 2007 New York Times headline. “Today many women feel marginalized once they reach menopause. But research suggests that far from being a burden to societies, grandmothers have played an important role in the evolution of human longevity.”

A 2011 article mentioned the grandmother hypothesis, as did two articles in 2012, a 2017 story, a 2019 piece celebrating menopause, and an interview earlier this year mentioned it.

The grandmother hypothesis, in short, is widely known and widely, though not universally, accepted as an evolutionary explanation for why human women live so far beyond the end of their fertility.

Yet somehow, when vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) acknowledged the grandmother hypothesis, this earned him scorn.

A Chicago radio station tried to turn it into a scandal that Vance once agreed “with a podcast host who says having grandmothers help raise children is ‘the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female.’” The post got reposted 10,000 times. Feminist celebrities and Democratic lawmakers piled on.  

Of course, the podcast host’s wording was way off-base (“the whole purpose”), but that wasn’t Vance’s wording. Vance was agreeing with two things: (1) women serve a great societal role after menopause, and (2) parents benefit greatly when they get help raising children from their own parents.

Either claim is objectionable only to a certain mindset. “Think Twice, Grandma, Before You Become the Nanny” was the headline at Bloomberg News. “The biggest losses from taking care of grandchildren are what economists call opportunity, or indirect, costs,” the liberal economist Teresa Ghilarducci wrote.

Our media class considers it a crime when children are asked to look after their younger siblings — “Eldest Daughter Syndrome!”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Boundaries” and “autonomy” have become sacred and inviolable. Helping someone has been redubbed “care work,” and it’s now akin to slavery.

In a world that rejects family obligations, it’s not surprising that some folks are offended by the idea of grandma having societal value.

2024-08-16 07:35:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3122759%2Fgrandmas-just-got-canceled%2F?w=600&h=450, If you are a faithful reader of the New York Times , you know about the “grandmother hypothesis.” “When a young woman is burdened with a suckling infant and cannot fend for her family,” a New York Times reporter in 1997 noted about the Hadza people of north Tanzania, “she turns for support, not to,

If you are a faithful reader of the New York Times, you know about the “grandmother hypothesis.”

“When a young woman is burdened with a suckling infant and cannot fend for her family,” a New York Times reporter in 1997 noted about the Hadza people of north Tanzania, “she turns for support, not to her mate, but to a senior female relative — her mother, an aunt, an elder cousin. It is Grandma, or Grandma-proxy, who keeps the woman’s other children in baobab and berries, Grandma who keeps them alive.”

This asset, grandma, was unique to humans, some apes, and some whales. And it was incredibly important. Anthropologist Kristen Hawkes argued, in the New York Times’s words, that “prehistoric women very likely often survived past menopause, and that they were instrumental to the survival of their families. … Only with the ascent of the grandmother, she says, were human ancestors freed to exploit new habitats, to go where no other hominid or primate had gone before, and to become the species we know so well.”

“Evolution’s Secret Weapon: Grandma” was the 2007 New York Times headline. “Today many women feel marginalized once they reach menopause. But research suggests that far from being a burden to societies, grandmothers have played an important role in the evolution of human longevity.”

A 2011 article mentioned the grandmother hypothesis, as did two articles in 2012, a 2017 story, a 2019 piece celebrating menopause, and an interview earlier this year mentioned it.

The grandmother hypothesis, in short, is widely known and widely, though not universally, accepted as an evolutionary explanation for why human women live so far beyond the end of their fertility.

Yet somehow, when vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) acknowledged the grandmother hypothesis, this earned him scorn.

A Chicago radio station tried to turn it into a scandal that Vance once agreed “with a podcast host who says having grandmothers help raise children is ‘the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female.’” The post got reposted 10,000 times. Feminist celebrities and Democratic lawmakers piled on.  

Of course, the podcast host’s wording was way off-base (“the whole purpose”), but that wasn’t Vance’s wording. Vance was agreeing with two things: (1) women serve a great societal role after menopause, and (2) parents benefit greatly when they get help raising children from their own parents.

Either claim is objectionable only to a certain mindset. “Think Twice, Grandma, Before You Become the Nanny” was the headline at Bloomberg News. “The biggest losses from taking care of grandchildren are what economists call opportunity, or indirect, costs,” the liberal economist Teresa Ghilarducci wrote.

Our media class considers it a crime when children are asked to look after their younger siblings — “Eldest Daughter Syndrome!”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Boundaries” and “autonomy” have become sacred and inviolable. Helping someone has been redubbed “care work,” and it’s now akin to slavery.

In a world that rejects family obligations, it’s not surprising that some folks are offended by the idea of grandma having societal value.

, If you are a faithful reader of the New York Times , you know about the “grandmother hypothesis.” “When a young woman is burdened with a suckling infant and cannot fend for her family,” a New York Times reporter in 1997 noted about the Hadza people of north Tanzania, “she turns for support, not to her mate, but to a senior female relative — her mother, an aunt, an elder cousin. It is Grandma, or Grandma-proxy, who keeps the woman’s other children in baobab and berries, Grandma who keeps them alive.” This asset, grandma, was unique to humans, some apes, and some whales. And it was incredibly important. Anthropologist Kristen Hawkes argued, in the New York Times’s words, that “prehistoric women very likely often survived past menopause, and that they were instrumental to the survival of their families. … Only with the ascent of the grandmother, she says, were human ancestors freed to exploit new habitats, to go where no other hominid or primate had gone before, and to become the species we know so well.” “Evolution’s Secret Weapon: Grandma” was the 2007 New York Times headline. “Today many women feel marginalized once they reach menopause. But research suggests that far from being a burden to societies, grandmothers have played an important role in the evolution of human longevity.” A 2011 article mentioned the grandmother hypothesis, as did two articles in 2012, a 2017 story, a 2019 piece celebrating menopause, and an interview earlier this year mentioned it. The grandmother hypothesis, in short, is widely known and widely, though not universally, accepted as an evolutionary explanation for why human women live so far beyond the end of their fertility. Yet somehow, when vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) acknowledged the grandmother hypothesis, this earned him scorn. A Chicago radio station tried to turn it into a scandal that Vance once agreed “with a podcast host who says having grandmothers help raise children is ‘the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female.’” The post got reposted 10,000 times. Feminist celebrities and Democratic lawmakers piled on.   Of course, the podcast host’s wording was way off-base (“the whole purpose”), but that wasn’t Vance’s wording. Vance was agreeing with two things: (1) women serve a great societal role after menopause, and (2) parents benefit greatly when they get help raising children from their own parents. Either claim is objectionable only to a certain mindset. “Think Twice, Grandma, Before You Become the Nanny” was the headline at Bloomberg News. “The biggest losses from taking care of grandchildren are what economists call opportunity, or indirect, costs,” the liberal economist Teresa Ghilarducci wrote. Our media class considers it a crime when children are asked to look after their younger siblings — “Eldest Daughter Syndrome!” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “Boundaries” and “autonomy” have become sacred and inviolable. Helping someone has been redubbed “care work,” and it’s now akin to slavery. In a world that rejects family obligations, it’s not surprising that some folks are offended by the idea of grandma having societal value., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/YL.Grandmas_082124.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Timothy P. Carney,

When Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) says his “golden rule” is “mind your own damn business,” what does he mean?

Walz certainly doesn’t mean that government should let people live their lives as they wish. Walz wants to ban private ownership of the most popular firearm in the country. He signed a law forcing car dealers to sell more electric cars and fewer gasoline cars, regardless of what the dealers and their customers wanted.

During COVID, Walz outlawed church and Little League, mandated vaccines, mandated masks, and then created a hotline and encouraged Minnesotans to snitch on their neighbors for throwing birthday parties.

Walz has even said, on national television, that he wants to curb the freedom of speech.

Walz’s golden rule, then, certainly doesn’t mean “the government should leave individuals alone to live their lives as they please.” He clearly believes that the government should tell people what they can or cannot own and sell and what they may not or must do with their own bodies.

So what exactly does Walz mean by “mind your own damn business”?

He gave us a hint when he reiterated his golden rule in Arizona.

“Society works best when you learn a golden rule: mind your own damn business. I don’t need you telling me what books to read,” he said to massive applause.

What is Walz talking about? Who exactly is telling Tim Walz what to read?

The closest thing I could find is Walz’s legislation on “book bans,” which he likes to contrast with Florida’s policies on indecent or inappropriate books in school libraries.

“Let’s be very clear,” Walz said at a book fair in 2023. “These books are banned in the state of Florida. That’s where freedom goes to die.” Walz was, according to reporters, holding up copies of Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men.

Walz was totally wrong, of course. Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men are not banned in Florida. This is a common, very online lie. Walz either gullibly fell for an obvious lie or willingly passed along a blatant lie.

Walz this year signed a bill purportedly prohibiting the banning of books. But again, nobody is making it illegal to buy, sell, or read Lord of the Flies. So what does Walz’s book-ban ban do?

It bans local schools from controlling what books go in their libraries. It strips parents and communities of the power to mind their own libraries. The books being removed from local libraries are largely volumes such as This Book is Gay, which is a pornographic book with detailed descriptions of sex, including perversion, such as eating feces.

Here we see what Walz’s golden rule means: It’s not the parents’ business or the principal’s business or the local school board’s business whether gay porn is in their school libraries.

Walz’s bill says the only person who can decide on library collections is “a licensed library media specialist … an individual with a master’s degree in library science or library and information science; or a professional librarian or a person trained in library collection management.”

That is, what books your children read is the business of Walz, state legislators, and their preferred experts.

In this light, Walz’s COVID lockdowns fit into his golden rule. Your child’s birthday party is Walz’s business, and if he tells you it’s illegal, then you should mind your own damn business and obey.

Oren Cass made this fine observation about Walz’s worldview: “Note that Walz follows ‘mind your own damn business’ with ‘stay out of our business.’ This makes no sense if the first directive is a universal one, and the people in the audience should also mind their own damn business. No, the ‘our’ is plural, and the in-group’s business is what must proceed unbothered. Nor is there any promise that our business will mind itself and stay out of yours.”

Walz thinks your children’s education is his business and the business of his friends, and he wants you to butt out.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

2024-08-13 00:20:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3119271%2Fdoes-tim-walz-think-your-children-his-business%2F?w=600&h=450, When Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) says his “golden rule” is “mind your own damn business,” what does he mean? Walz certainly doesn’t mean that government should let people live their lives as they wish. Walz wants to ban private ownership of the most popular firearm in the country. He signed a law forcing car dealers,

When Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) says his “golden rule” is “mind your own damn business,” what does he mean?

Walz certainly doesn’t mean that government should let people live their lives as they wish. Walz wants to ban private ownership of the most popular firearm in the country. He signed a law forcing car dealers to sell more electric cars and fewer gasoline cars, regardless of what the dealers and their customers wanted.

During COVID, Walz outlawed church and Little League, mandated vaccines, mandated masks, and then created a hotline and encouraged Minnesotans to snitch on their neighbors for throwing birthday parties.

Walz has even said, on national television, that he wants to curb the freedom of speech.

Walz’s golden rule, then, certainly doesn’t mean “the government should leave individuals alone to live their lives as they please.” He clearly believes that the government should tell people what they can or cannot own and sell and what they may not or must do with their own bodies.

So what exactly does Walz mean by “mind your own damn business”?

He gave us a hint when he reiterated his golden rule in Arizona.

“Society works best when you learn a golden rule: mind your own damn business. I don’t need you telling me what books to read,” he said to massive applause.

What is Walz talking about? Who exactly is telling Tim Walz what to read?

The closest thing I could find is Walz’s legislation on “book bans,” which he likes to contrast with Florida’s policies on indecent or inappropriate books in school libraries.

“Let’s be very clear,” Walz said at a book fair in 2023. “These books are banned in the state of Florida. That’s where freedom goes to die.” Walz was, according to reporters, holding up copies of Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men.

Walz was totally wrong, of course. Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men are not banned in Florida. This is a common, very online lie. Walz either gullibly fell for an obvious lie or willingly passed along a blatant lie.

Walz this year signed a bill purportedly prohibiting the banning of books. But again, nobody is making it illegal to buy, sell, or read Lord of the Flies. So what does Walz’s book-ban ban do?

It bans local schools from controlling what books go in their libraries. It strips parents and communities of the power to mind their own libraries. The books being removed from local libraries are largely volumes such as This Book is Gay, which is a pornographic book with detailed descriptions of sex, including perversion, such as eating feces.

Here we see what Walz’s golden rule means: It’s not the parents’ business or the principal’s business or the local school board’s business whether gay porn is in their school libraries.

Walz’s bill says the only person who can decide on library collections is “a licensed library media specialist … an individual with a master’s degree in library science or library and information science; or a professional librarian or a person trained in library collection management.”

That is, what books your children read is the business of Walz, state legislators, and their preferred experts.

In this light, Walz’s COVID lockdowns fit into his golden rule. Your child’s birthday party is Walz’s business, and if he tells you it’s illegal, then you should mind your own damn business and obey.

Oren Cass made this fine observation about Walz’s worldview: “Note that Walz follows ‘mind your own damn business’ with ‘stay out of our business.’ This makes no sense if the first directive is a universal one, and the people in the audience should also mind their own damn business. No, the ‘our’ is plural, and the in-group’s business is what must proceed unbothered. Nor is there any promise that our business will mind itself and stay out of yours.”

Walz thinks your children’s education is his business and the business of his friends, and he wants you to butt out.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

, When Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) says his “golden rule” is “mind your own damn business,” what does he mean? Walz certainly doesn’t mean that government should let people live their lives as they wish. Walz wants to ban private ownership of the most popular firearm in the country. He signed a law forcing car dealers to sell more electric cars and fewer gasoline cars, regardless of what the dealers and their customers wanted. During COVID, Walz outlawed church and Little League, mandated vaccines, mandated masks, and then created a hotline and encouraged Minnesotans to snitch on their neighbors for throwing birthday parties. Walz has even said, on national television, that he wants to curb the freedom of speech. Walz’s golden rule, then, certainly doesn’t mean “the government should leave individuals alone to live their lives as they please.” He clearly believes that the government should tell people what they can or cannot own and sell and what they may not or must do with their own bodies. So what exactly does Walz mean by “mind your own damn business”? He gave us a hint when he reiterated his golden rule in Arizona. Couldn’t help but notice that the line Tim Walz gets the biggest applause for is “Mind your own damn business.” This is the guy who: Set-up a snitch line Backed a non-criminal speech registry Shut down Churches Mandated shots for state employees The irony. pic.twitter.com/zUBnfGaEmy — Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) August 11, 2024 “Society works best when you learn a golden rule: mind your own damn business. I don’t need you telling me what books to read,” he said to massive applause. What is Walz talking about? Who exactly is telling Tim Walz what to read? The closest thing I could find is Walz’s legislation on “book bans,” which he likes to contrast with Florida’s policies on indecent or inappropriate books in school libraries. “Let’s be very clear,” Walz said at a book fair in 2023. “These books are banned in the state of Florida. That’s where freedom goes to die.” Walz was, according to reporters, holding up copies of Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men. Walz was totally wrong, of course. Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men are not banned in Florida. This is a common, very online lie. Walz either gullibly fell for an obvious lie or willingly passed along a blatant lie. Walz this year signed a bill purportedly prohibiting the banning of books. But again, nobody is making it illegal to buy, sell, or read Lord of the Flies. So what does Walz’s book-ban ban do? It bans local schools from controlling what books go in their libraries. It strips parents and communities of the power to mind their own libraries. The books being removed from local libraries are largely volumes such as This Book is Gay, which is a pornographic book with detailed descriptions of sex, including perversion, such as eating feces. Here we see what Walz’s golden rule means: It’s not the parents’ business or the principal’s business or the local school board’s business whether gay porn is in their school libraries. Walz’s bill says the only person who can decide on library collections is “a licensed library media specialist … an individual with a master’s degree in library science or library and information science; or a professional librarian or a person trained in library collection management.” That is, what books your children read is the business of Walz, state legislators, and their preferred experts. In this light, Walz’s COVID lockdowns fit into his golden rule. Your child’s birthday party is Walz’s business, and if he tells you it’s illegal, then you should mind your own damn business and obey. Oren Cass made this fine observation about Walz’s worldview: “Note that Walz follows ‘mind your own damn business’ with ‘stay out of our business.’ This makes no sense if the first directive is a universal one, and the people in the audience should also mind their own damn business. No, the ‘our’ is plural, and the in-group’s business is what must proceed unbothered. Nor is there any promise that our business will mind itself and stay out of yours.” Walz thinks your children’s education is his business and the business of his friends, and he wants you to butt out. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ap-tim-walz-speech-081224.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Timothy P. Carney,

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) hunts, is a Christian, and gives off “dad vibes” — this last one particularly appeals to news-media types. For these reasons, Democrats believe he has the blue-collar appeal most Democrats lack.

It’s true Democrats need to reverse their mad rush to become the party of wealthy suburbanites if they want to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. But is it true that Walz can win over the type of voter turned off by San Francisco politicians like Vice President Kamala Harris?

Walz’s record is mixed on that score.

Check out the county maps for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 win of Minnesota compared to Walz’s 2018 win. Walz did much better than Clinton, winning 54% of the vote compared to Clinton’s 46%.

Clinton won nine of 87 counties in 2016, while Walz won all nine of those, plus another 12. (Norman County was basically a tie.) Drilling down a bit deeper, six of those additional 12 counties were in Walz’s congressional district, which he had represented for more than a decade.

So, if we’re asking about Walz’s reach to working-class rural or exurban voters, we should look outside of his congressional district. There, he improved on Clinton’s seven counties to a total of 13. Of those extra six counties Walz won, former President Donald Trump had won by more than a couple of points in only three: Anoka, Beltrami, and Koochiching.

Of those three, Anoka is a wealthy county, with household income more than $10,000 greater than the state as a whole, while Beltrami and Koochiching are poor counties, with both more than $20,000 below the state average. Beltrami’s population is about 20% Native American (the Red Lake Reservation is there), and Koochiching is a tiny county with fewer than 6,000 voters in those two elections. So, if we get anything from this analysis, it is that Walz was much better than Clinton in turning out the Native American vote. There’s no real evidence there that Walz can win the working-class white vote.

MSNBC analyst Steve Kornacki looks at Walz’s 2022 reelection and also fails to find evidence that Walz reaches beyond Democrats’ standard base.

Some liberal journalists are upset by this analysis.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that’s just motivated reasoning. Yes, journalists like Walz, a pro-abortion, left-wing Democrat, more than they like Vance, a conservative, Catholic Republican, but this tells us nothing about voters.

It’s possible that early polling will show a Walz appeal among working-class voters, but that evidence isn’t present yet.

2024-08-08 12:43:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3114509%2Fdoes-walz-appeal-blue-collar-voters%2F?w=600&h=450, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) hunts, is a Christian, and gives off “dad vibes” — this last one particularly appeals to news-media types. For these reasons, Democrats believe he has the blue-collar appeal most Democrats lack. It’s true Democrats need to reverse their mad rush to become the party of wealthy suburbanites if they want to,

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) hunts, is a Christian, and gives off “dad vibes” — this last one particularly appeals to news-media types. For these reasons, Democrats believe he has the blue-collar appeal most Democrats lack.

It’s true Democrats need to reverse their mad rush to become the party of wealthy suburbanites if they want to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. But is it true that Walz can win over the type of voter turned off by San Francisco politicians like Vice President Kamala Harris?

Walz’s record is mixed on that score.

Check out the county maps for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 win of Minnesota compared to Walz’s 2018 win. Walz did much better than Clinton, winning 54% of the vote compared to Clinton’s 46%.

Clinton won nine of 87 counties in 2016, while Walz won all nine of those, plus another 12. (Norman County was basically a tie.) Drilling down a bit deeper, six of those additional 12 counties were in Walz’s congressional district, which he had represented for more than a decade.

So, if we’re asking about Walz’s reach to working-class rural or exurban voters, we should look outside of his congressional district. There, he improved on Clinton’s seven counties to a total of 13. Of those extra six counties Walz won, former President Donald Trump had won by more than a couple of points in only three: Anoka, Beltrami, and Koochiching.

Of those three, Anoka is a wealthy county, with household income more than $10,000 greater than the state as a whole, while Beltrami and Koochiching are poor counties, with both more than $20,000 below the state average. Beltrami’s population is about 20% Native American (the Red Lake Reservation is there), and Koochiching is a tiny county with fewer than 6,000 voters in those two elections. So, if we get anything from this analysis, it is that Walz was much better than Clinton in turning out the Native American vote. There’s no real evidence there that Walz can win the working-class white vote.

MSNBC analyst Steve Kornacki looks at Walz’s 2022 reelection and also fails to find evidence that Walz reaches beyond Democrats’ standard base.

Some liberal journalists are upset by this analysis.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that’s just motivated reasoning. Yes, journalists like Walz, a pro-abortion, left-wing Democrat, more than they like Vance, a conservative, Catholic Republican, but this tells us nothing about voters.

It’s possible that early polling will show a Walz appeal among working-class voters, but that evidence isn’t present yet.

, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) hunts, is a Christian, and gives off “dad vibes” — this last one particularly appeals to news-media types. For these reasons, Democrats believe he has the blue-collar appeal most Democrats lack. It’s true Democrats need to reverse their mad rush to become the party of wealthy suburbanites if they want to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. But is it true that Walz can win over the type of voter turned off by San Francisco politicians like Vice President Kamala Harris? Walz’s record is mixed on that score. Check out the county maps for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 win of Minnesota compared to Walz’s 2018 win. Walz did much better than Clinton, winning 54% of the vote compared to Clinton’s 46%. Clinton won nine of 87 counties in 2016, while Walz won all nine of those, plus another 12. (Norman County was basically a tie.) Drilling down a bit deeper, six of those additional 12 counties were in Walz’s congressional district, which he had represented for more than a decade. So, if we’re asking about Walz’s reach to working-class rural or exurban voters, we should look outside of his congressional district. There, he improved on Clinton’s seven counties to a total of 13. Of those extra six counties Walz won, former President Donald Trump had won by more than a couple of points in only three: Anoka, Beltrami, and Koochiching. Of those three, Anoka is a wealthy county, with household income more than $10,000 greater than the state as a whole, while Beltrami and Koochiching are poor counties, with both more than $20,000 below the state average. Beltrami’s population is about 20% Native American (the Red Lake Reservation is there), and Koochiching is a tiny county with fewer than 6,000 voters in those two elections. So, if we get anything from this analysis, it is that Walz was much better than Clinton in turning out the Native American vote. There’s no real evidence there that Walz can win the working-class white vote. MSNBC analyst Steve Kornacki looks at Walz’s 2022 reelection and also fails to find evidence that Walz reaches beyond Democrats’ standard base. The results of Walz’s ’22 GOV race in MN don’t suggest he provides an obvious boost with the blue collar voters Dems have been shedding in WI/MI/PA: https://t.co/knKPzbd05E — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) August 6, 2024 Some liberal journalists are upset by this analysis. Do you guys really think swing rust belt voters will like jd Vance over Tim Walz? Have you talked to anyone normal— Molly Knight (@molly_knight) August 6, 2024 CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER But that’s just motivated reasoning. Yes, journalists like Walz, a pro-abortion, left-wing Democrat, more than they like Vance, a conservative, Catholic Republican, but this tells us nothing about voters. It’s possible that early polling will show a Walz appeal among working-class voters, but that evidence isn’t present yet., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/shapiro-kamala-harris-tim-walz-1024×591.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Timothy P. Carney,

Vice President Kamala Harris does not believe that the pro-life position is a legitimate one, and she has pledged to bring prosecutorial punishment down on all who disagree with her extremist abortion position.

Anyone who warns of Trump’s “authoritarianism” needs to consider what a President Harris would mean for pro-life activists and institutions.

The pro-life position is that children in utero are humans who deserve the protection of the law. Harris has said this is not tolerable.

“We cannot tolerate a perspective that is about going backward and not understanding women have agency,” Harris said in 2019. “On this issue, I’m kind of done.”

She promised in 2019 to sic the Justice Department on states that pass pro-life laws. Instead, the Biden-Harris Justice Department created a task force to prosecute pro-lifers, and those charges were often flimsy in the extreme. These charges were best understood as a way to harass pro-lifers.

I wrote about her extremism on abortion in 2020:

Harris’s anti-Catholic bigotry flames up at times. As a senator, she tagged the Knights of Columbus as an extremist group outside the bounds of polite society.

A Harris presidency would mean persecution for pro-lifers.

2024-07-30 13:19:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3103283%2Fkamala-the-prosecutor-has-pro-lifers-in-her-sights%2F?w=600&h=450, Vice President Kamala Harris does not believe that the pro-life position is a legitimate one, and she has pledged to bring prosecutorial punishment down on all who disagree with her extremist abortion position. Anyone who warns of Trump’s “authoritarianism” needs to consider what a President Harris would mean for pro-life activists and institutions. The pro-life,

Vice President Kamala Harris does not believe that the pro-life position is a legitimate one, and she has pledged to bring prosecutorial punishment down on all who disagree with her extremist abortion position.

Anyone who warns of Trump’s “authoritarianism” needs to consider what a President Harris would mean for pro-life activists and institutions.

The pro-life position is that children in utero are humans who deserve the protection of the law. Harris has said this is not tolerable.

“We cannot tolerate a perspective that is about going backward and not understanding women have agency,” Harris said in 2019. “On this issue, I’m kind of done.”

She promised in 2019 to sic the Justice Department on states that pass pro-life laws. Instead, the Biden-Harris Justice Department created a task force to prosecute pro-lifers, and those charges were often flimsy in the extreme. These charges were best understood as a way to harass pro-lifers.

I wrote about her extremism on abortion in 2020:

Harris’s anti-Catholic bigotry flames up at times. As a senator, she tagged the Knights of Columbus as an extremist group outside the bounds of polite society.

A Harris presidency would mean persecution for pro-lifers.

, Vice President Kamala Harris does not believe that the pro-life position is a legitimate one, and she has pledged to bring prosecutorial punishment down on all who disagree with her extremist abortion position. Anyone who warns of Trump’s “authoritarianism” needs to consider what a President Harris would mean for pro-life activists and institutions. The pro-life position is that children in utero are humans who deserve the protection of the law. Harris has said this is not tolerable. “We cannot tolerate a perspective that is about going backward and not understanding women have agency,” Harris said in 2019. “On this issue, I’m kind of done.” She promised in 2019 to sic the Justice Department on states that pass pro-life laws. Instead, the Biden-Harris Justice Department created a task force to prosecute pro-lifers, and those charges were often flimsy in the extreme. These charges were best understood as a way to harass pro-lifers. I wrote about her extremism on abortion in 2020: “She prosecutes pro-life journalists. ‘On this issue,’ when talking about how she’ll handle pro-lifers, Kamala says, ‘I’m a former prosecutor.’ Sure enough, she teamed up with abortion giant Planned Parenthood to prosecute activist filmmaker David Daleiden for his undercover films exposing Planned Parenthood’s business in selling the remains of the babies they abort. “She would strip away conscience protections for doctors or nurses who do not want to take part in abortions. That’s a provision in the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act‘ that she cosponsors. “She opposes even the basic requirements on abortion, including parental notification, waiting periods, and informed consent laws. Those could all be gutted by the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act.’ “She supports late-term abortions.” This is all in the context of Democrats trying to shut down pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and the American Civil Liberties Union trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Harris’s anti-Catholic bigotry flames up at times. As a senator, she tagged the Knights of Columbus as an extremist group outside the bounds of polite society. A Harris presidency would mean persecution for pro-lifers., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Harris_Kamala_2024_election_4465429.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Timothy P. Carney,

MILWAUKEE — The Republican National Convention brought about 50,000 people to this city for a week in mid-July. But of those, only one columnist ended up at County Clare Irish Pub on the night of July 16.

“Shitty,” was how bartender Patrick described business that night. “It’s been bad all week.”

County Clare is a 20-minute walk from Fiserv Forum, where the delegates, guests, politicians, and lobbyists all gathered, accompanied by hundreds of police, reporters, and vendors.

Businesses all over the city thought this influx would mean customers. Bars and restaurants in and near the Deer District — the new dining and drinking neighborhood around the arena, where the Bucks play basketball — certainly did rake it in. Hotels all around the region filled up. But many of the coffee shops, bars, and bookstores just outside the shadow of the convention saw none of this action. They saw less than normal.

“Anyone outside of that area is really f***ed,” said Josh, who tends bar at the Riverside Theater. “There are some people who are helped. Most people around here are hurt.”

Local businessman Daniel Cruz told BizTimes that it’s “the people well-connected with this convention that seem to be the beneficiaries as opposed to the neighborhood businesses and the local businesses that I’m seeing.”

The Historic Third Ward of Milwaukee, anchored by the Public Market, is usually a main destination for locals and visitors. A few television crews showed up at the Public Market Wednesday morning to do segments on “Real Milwaukee,” but not many other folks did.

I asked the barista at Anodyne Coffee inside the market whether they’re getting more business because of the convention.

“Less, actually. Much less,” she replied. They had expected a boom. “We even staffed extra,” she says. One on-duty barista idly played on her MacBook at the end of the bar.

Patrick’s regulars didn’t show up at County Clare because “They’re all out of town” he said. Josh said that getting around the city is made harder by the security and closures, and so locals stayed home.

The security is the biggest problem. Entering the convention area requires standing in lengthy lines (often in the sun) and passing through metal detectors. Anyone who makes it inside the security perimeter is loath to leave until it’s time go to bed. Because that bed might be in Pewaukee, in Waukesha County, the delegates and reporters have to hop on buses — which leaves no time for wandering to the neighborhood joints.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“It’s been tough for Milwaukee,” bartender Edgar said the Explorium Brewpub. The pub had staffed up for a surge, but got the opposite. Throughout Thursday at lunchtime, there were more employees than customers. “At least it’s over today,” Edgar said.

Even Airbnb operators struggled, the BizTimes reported, because the summer weddings they normally rely on weren’t happening on the two weekends around the convention.

The politicians’ visit here provided a perfect metaphor for what happens whenever government shows up: the well-connected guys win, and the little guy loses.

MILWAUKEE — In a healthy political culture, a party’s voters and delegates would see a felony conviction as a reason not to nominate a politician. We do not function in a healthy political culture.

The Republican Party has a cultural sickness that is its cult of personality. Former President Donald Trump has successfully recentered the party around him, personally — branding as a “Republican In Name Only” or a traitor any Republican who opposes him.

But even worse is the utter abandonment of professional standards, institutional authority, and pretense of neutrality by nearly every institution in America controlled by the American Left.

When media elites and Democratic commentators point out that Trump is a convicted felon, they are drawing on an old idea. To them, “convicted felon” means someone who has been judged guilty of a serious crime at multiple levels of serious consideration.

In a healthy society, it’s rare that a prosecutor would bring charges against someone unless he seriously believed that person had willfully broken the law and caused serious harm. In a healthy society, a judge would make it difficult for an overzealous prosecutor to convict someone unless that person had willfully broken the law and caused serious harm.

But in our broken culture, prosecutors and judges see their power as tools to use for political gain. In such a culture “convicted felon” carries no more weight than “politician hated by his opponents.”

Donald Trump isn’t an ordinary politician. All of the criminal and civil cases brought against him reflect actual misdeeds — improper handling of public records, marital infidelity, and rejecting the results of an election he lost. But most or all of those prosecutions, and certainly the New York case under which he has been prosecuted by a politician who ran on the promise he would find something for which to prosecute Trump, reflect something else.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Given such a criminal justice system, it’s archaic for newsmen to use “convicted felon” as a criticism.

It would be good if “convicted felon” carried more weight than “politician hated by his opponents,” but today it doesn’t — and newsmen and commentators should stop pretending it does.

MILWAUKEE — In some ways, it’s hard to see why Joe Biden would drop out. There’s no party establishment that can drive him out. He has expressed no openness to persuasion. There’s a plausible case that he is at least as electable as Vice President Kamala Harris or any other Democrat. And there’s no reason to believe he’s bothered by his own inability to actually be president of the United States

On the other hand, the dam of protection around Biden shows signs of cracking.

Biden’s disastrous debate performance showed the decline that Democrats and the news media had tried to hide, and every other day since then, more and more Democrats urge Biden to drop out of the race. And every day, the news looks more damning for Biden.

Now we have news that Biden has COVID — mostly harmless for most people but really dangerous for very old and frail people like Biden.

This could be the tipping point to drive Biden out of the race, especially because he said he would drop out if diagnosed with a medical condition. It could also kill him. In either event, Democrats are deeply in disarray.

Here at the Republican National Convention, the party’s speakers have spent two days attacking Biden. They all have scripts for tonight and Friday night attacking Biden.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Are all those attacks, and all this prime-time free programming, wasted if Biden’s not the nominee? Delegates and guests in Milwaukee reacted to the Biden-COVID news with disbelief and confusion.

It’s obviously worse to be a Democrat today than a Republican, but the chaos factor here creates problems for the GOP too.

MILWAUKEE — Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, said that diversity box-checking was behind the Secret Service’s failures before the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump.

“It’s the DEI bulls***,” Cammack told reporters on Monday ahead of the Republican National Convention.

“I think what we’re seeing is what happens when you are more focused on checking boxes, then you are actually getting the most qualified people in the room,” she said.

“There is a lot of work and discussions that needs to be had about who are we hiring to protect presidential candidates,” the congresswoman said. “Donald Trump is six-foot-two. I’m five-foot-three. You wouldn’t want me protecting him. I cannot physically take a bullet for him at that height. And so when you have people who are just not physically capable of doing so, we have to have that conversation.”

She summarized the DEI approach as “we need so many of X, Y, and Z,” saying this approach “has really put us all collectively in danger and it’s a real shame.”

Cammack added: “I think that the agents on the ground with the president did the absolute very best that they could, and you saw that they were on him within seconds.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

She reiterated: “I think there has to be a full top-down review of are we putting our best on our most hybrid, high-profile targets. And in this case, Donald Trump is our highest, most top-profile target.”

Cammack suggested her select committee would ask such questions as part of the oversight hearings.