Shut your Pie-Hole Rich Lowry

The Times once again provides a platform for the Anti-Anti's who are just flailing in the face of the momentum that the Harris/Walz campaign is rolling on.

donald trump throwing a ketchup bottle at a TV

Woke up this morning too damn early, and opened my iPad and saw a headline at the NY Times that triggered my “For Fucks’ Sake” alarm.

The grey lady decided to open their editorial page to the editor of the “National Review”, a.k.a. Rich Lowry.

What wisdom did Mr. Lowry impart? We’ll look at the headline:

Huh, maybe this retromingent wad of anti-anti fuck has a point. Shall we see?

First, here’s the gifted link for those who love to self-flagellate.

What wisdom does Lowry feel is best to not publish on his OWN FUCKING MAGAZINE?

Well, he kicks off with a shit take:

With the defenestration of Joe Biden and the ascent of Kamala Harris, conventional wisdom has gone from asking, “How can Donald Trump lose?” to, “How can he win?”

Gee Rich, that is a $5 word there, “defenestration” so I guess you feel good about implying that President Biden was tossed out of a window. Whatever you need to fluff that flagging priapism my dude.

As usual when he falters, Mr. Trump is getting a lot of advice from his own side.

For as long as Mr. Trump has been in the ascendancy in the G.O.P., he will go off on some pointless tangent and Republicans will urge him — perhaps as they hustle down a corridor of the U.S. Capitol — to talk about the economy instead of his controversy du jour.

Gee, really? He gets advice from his advisors? Please, tell me more. Oh wait, he needs to focus on the issues? At least that is the advice from the “adults in the room”:

A close cousin of this perpetual advice is the admonition that Mr. Trump should concentrate more on the issues in this campaign. Neither recommendation is wrong, but they are insufficient to making the case against Kamala Harris.

I will admit that he has a point that this is insufficient. (Not to mention that Trump and the current Republican party have vacated any continent where there is a hint of a concrete policy procurement.

Let’s face it, we are almost a decade out from the last time that “policy” made an iota of a difference in the electorate¹.

Perhaps Rich has a point?

Nah, because the next para is this “gem”

Presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues, and often the issues are proxies for character. Not character in the sense of a candidate’s personal life, but the attributes that play into the question of whether someone is suited to the presidency — is he or she qualified, trustworthy and strong, and does he or she care about average Americans?

So it is about character after all? Just not the character that you pontificated about from the Clinton era, but instead some nebulous “qualification” to be president?

Talk about hollow. Here Lowry is arguing that Harris is “untested”, and “lacking” trustworthiness, implying that Trump is a proven President?

Sorry, I just had to pick up the remnants of my exploded head.

Here’s where I actually agree with Rich:

The Obama team hammered Mitt Romney on the issues in 2012, but pretty much every policy argument went back to the core contention that he was a heartless, out-of-touch capitalist who valued the bottom line more than people. That ended up being the winning argument of the campaign.

By the same token, Mr. Trump isn’t going to beat Ms. Harris by scoring points in the debate over price controls or the border.

Correctamundo, the usual fare for debates is not going to work and may not ever work again. But the person who has done the most damage to the age-old debate forms is undoubtedly his golden calf, Donald Trump.

And here is where he really goes full “Simple Jack”:

Everything has to be connected to the deeper case that Ms. Harris is weak, a phony, and doesn’t truly care about the country or the middle class. The scattershot Trump attacks on Harris need to be refocused on these character attributes.

To wit: Ms. Harris was too weak to win the Democratic primary contest this year. She was too weak to keep from telling the left practically everything it wanted to hear when she ran in 2019. She is too weak to hold open town-hall events or do extensive — or, at the moment, any — sit-down media interviews.

Ah, she’s “weak”, and phony, and doesn’t care about the country.

Dude, have you fucking heard the drivel that oozes forth from Trump’s mouth-anus? In 2016 at least he was able to be energetic when he spewed the bullshit that his warped stream of consciousness gish-gallop that issues forth whenever he opens his piehole, now it is low energy, dissembling and generally unfocused twaddle.

Then he goes into “Gee, in 2019 she was a far left progressive, and now she’s not…” Wah wah wah.

Dude, in 2019 Harris had to conform to a general candidate slate that was all rushing to be further to the left, and you know what? That wasn’t who she was, and it showed, as evidenced by her early exit.

This time? This is who she is, she has spent the bulk of her career in law enforcement, locking up scumbags, and making the streets safer.

Seems to me that Lowry and his ilk in general want the Kamala Harris of the 2020 election cycle.

Too fucking bad my dude.

Rich Lowry throwing pasta at the wall

Then he seems to trot out the Never Trump arguments (yes, the Anti-Anti’s and the Never Trumpers share a lot of takes…) that she was too weak to win the primary in 2024, and then he trots out the same ol’ same ol’ Reagan-esque playbook; taxes, inflation yada yada:

She didn’t do more as Vice President to secure the border or to address inflation because she didn’t care enough about the consequences for ordinary people. She doesn’t care if her tax policies will destroy jobs. She has been part of an administration that has seen real wages stagnate while minimizing the problem because the party line matters to her more than economic reality for working Americans.

Excuse me, what authority does the VP have? I mean, what the fuck did Mike Pence accomplish on his watch besides adding the Evangelical coalition to the dark side?

He then goes on to recall fondly the GWB vs John Kerry campaign as a roadmap. But then he goes on the offense:

He has also, in the past, been able to pithily and memorably nail core weaknesses of his opponents. His nicknaming may be a schoolyard tactic, yet it has often been effective tool, whether it was “Crooked Hillary” (underling Hillary Clinton’s ethical lapses) or “Little Marco” (diminishing a young primary opponent who lacked gravity). Even people who don’t like Trump or his nicknames would end up using these sobriquets.

Guess what Rich? Trump has been workshopping nicknames for Harris, and so far his mojo is out of alignment with the chakras in his ginormous, gargantuan diaper covered ass.

In fact it is almost entertaining to see him flail.

Oh and then he has to fluff Trump one more time to say how it is to the benefit of the Campaign that they are booking smaller, more intimate venues so Trump can connect to people one on one².

Mr. Trump’s campaign has been shrewd to begin to hold smaller, thematic-focused events rather than just set him loose at rallies, where there is the most opportunity for self-sabotaging riffs.

Way to spin the collapse we are seeing from Trump. One has to assume that Heinze is airlifting pallets of Ketchup bottles to Bedminster.

And like most porn fluffers, Rich is there for the money shot:

Mr. Trump has said he wants to do to his opponents what they are doing to him. At the end of the day, what they are undertaking is a focused, intelligently designed campaign to disqualify him. Responding in kind doesn’t mean lashing out in Truth Social posts, but crafting a comprehensive anti-Harris argument that implicates, in turn, her suitability for the highest office in the land. (emphasis mine)

That is all you need to know. Trump and his current campaign (Cory Lewandowski? Lara Trump?) is not really configured to do this, and even if the campaign can build a messaging kit for this, there is a 0.0% chance that Trump can make the case with discipline.

Nope Rich, your favorite Cheeto dusted felon is just not good at this, and your advice is laughable.

Rich sees the elevation of Trump back to the Resolute Desk and the inevitability of his spank folder material (aka Project 2025 is what he beats off to) slipping away, and you have the big sads.

1. This is one reason why the Harris campaign’s stiff arming the national media outlets over their whining about her not sitting for detailed policy interviews. Nah, those fuckers want to just get some “gotcha” moments they can side-by-side with Trumps verbal diarrhea and say “see? They both are the same”

2. Yeah, I was chuckling writing that.

---