Month: September 2025

What in the Delusional Hell?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Look, I’ve found some of what Kamala Harris has had to say so far in her book to be hilariously funny. When I read the excerpt about why she didn’t pick Pete Buttigieg as her running mate, I definitely found her logic to be sad and maybe even cynical, but also probably correct from a purely strategical manner. Her “criticisms” of Biden for staying in as long as he did basically miss reality for me, but I think from her perspective are almost a necessary rationalization of why things went how they did.

Then there’s the screenshots above about her book, which are basically a good enough reason for me to not read it. Look, I voted for Kamala Harris, and I would again. She’s got tons of good qualities. The fact is though, if they weren’t prepared for her to lose by election night, she and her team are the most delusional people I’ve ever seen. Yes, I knew we were going to win for Biden/Harris in 2020, because Joe Biden was not only consistently ahead in state and national polls, but was usually over 50% in most polls, regardless of his margin. At no point was Kamala Harris ever really there. She was behind in the polling averages in almost all of the swing states, well within the margin of error, but behind. Her numbers in the polls looked eerily similar to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Election Results, and they basically finished exactly there. Many Democratic donors, activists, and even operatives have spent years getting excited at every “gotcha” moment for Donald Trump, every bad debate performance or speech, and every new scandal that arises around the guy, and every time they get excited and proclaim “this is the time” people finally turn on him. They never do. The only campaign that ever put forward a viable alternative that a broad enough cross section of the country might vote for instead of Trump, was Biden’s 2020 campaign. Hillary and Kamala both sort of relied on the country finally decided Trump was too stupid, evil, corrupt, or wrong to vote for. That was never, ever going to happen.

There’s a really ugly truth that maybe Vice-President Harris didn’t want to write about, or maybe it was cut from the book, or whatever- Kamala Harris was never going to win the 2024 Election. The country had soured on the Democratic Party as a whole. Inflation had put them in a bad mood. They had soured on Biden, in part because of inflation, in part because he was old, and very largely because they felt he had governed less moderately than they hoped he would when they elected him. Harris was his Vice-President, in a party where really no one had made a move to stand against Biden’s Presidency, making her the most vulnerable to his negatives of a party full of people who were vulnerable to his negatives. Then there is the simple fact that Harris herself was viewed even more negatively than Biden through virtually his entire Presidency until Democrats ran away from him (like cowards) after his debate performance. And yes, since I named every other reason, let’s just state the obvious demographic reasons. Hillary Clinton was possibly the most qualified, most universally known nominee the party ever put forward in 2016, and Barack Obama was still very popular, not to mention she was the first female nominee in the history of the country. Just read everything after that last comma and get the point, because none of the stuff before it mattered. Hillary Clinton lost, as about the best woman nominee anyone could have come up with at that time. The country is very, very resistant to electing a woman. That’s a bad thing, but it’s a thing that isn’t changing on it’s own. Kamala Harris was not only the next woman to run for President, she was also a Black woman. This country’s history of racism is well chronicled. It’s a large reason why one of our first forty-seven Presidents wasn’t white. Harris, with an avalanche of things already against her, was asking the country to elect a Black woman. I don’t know if it was impossible for her to win in a neutral environment, but the odds were pretty high against her. Stack all of the other negative things I mentioned here on top of that, and Kamala Harris was basically trying to swim up Niagra Falls in this race. She never had a chance.

The 2024 Election was decided when party elders like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama decided to be influenced by the politically blind, such as George Clooney and other wealthy donors, and basically pushed Joe Biden out of the race. No one but Biden had a prayer in hell of beating Donald Trump. Biden knew that, that was why he had continued running for President well after his 80th birthday. Biden also knew that if he didn’t run, the only way to avoid a complete Civil War level meltdown within the Democratic Party was to coronate Kamala Harris and hope for the best. He had much better instincts than any of the other “elders” in the Democratic Party. All of this is what bothers me about what Harris is saying here. She’s criticizing Biden for being the adult in the room. She also wants us to believe she really had no idea she was going to lose. The day Biden dropped out, I knew she was going to lose. I know she was smart enough to know that too. I am willing to bet a donut to anyone that if you could get a candid answer out of anyone senior on the analytics team, they would tell you their numbers showed they were losing. As cynical as I am about analytics, even I would be stunned if they were so bad that they actually believed anything else.

Josh Siegel’s Path Forward for Lehigh County

/ Rich Wilkins / 4 Comments

Josh Siegel is running to move Lehigh County forward. Phil Armstrong did a great job the last eight years. Now it’s time to look forward. Unfortunately, Siegel has to run against Roger Maclean, a failed police chief who has no idea what government does, or how to do it. In their recent debate, Maclean’s solution to lost money from the federal government was “we’ll get our money.” Maclean lead a police department that raped and robbed people they arrested, now he downplays the death of Capitol Police on January 6th. He’s a disaster and he would end up either raising taxes or cutting all services he possibly could.

I’ll show their debate at the bottom of this post, but more immediately, Siegel has put forward his plan to move Lehigh County forward. From his Facebook:

We’re 41 days out from Election Day. Here’s what our One Lehigh platform is about. Pete Buttigieg has said “our salvation will really come from the local”.

I believe that! I believe in these dark and divisive times, local government is the building block for showing a better way, our chance to show what a better world can and should be in our own backyard:

Here’s what One Lehigh means:

✅A robust and strong local democracy where every resident has as many legal and lawful ways to cast a ballot and make their voice heard, no matter who you vote for or what party you are, it’s your civic duty and most basic right. I want you to exercise it. We need to protect the ballot box from efforts to undermine it.

✅Attainable housing for seniors, first-time homebuyers and working class families. We have a housing shortage, we need to build more of it, and everyone is a partner in that. Public, private and non-profit, it’s an all of the above approach. It’s the only way to lower costs.

✅Investing in and expanding public safety services from regional police and fire to prevention strategies like focused deterrence to ensure that every neighborhood and community is safe and secure. Public safety requires comprehensive, collaborative strategies.

✅Protecitng and preserving Cedarbrook for future generations of Lehigh County seniors and ensuring that our county keeps our promise that patients and residents come first-not profits. Federal funding cuts put these services in jeopardy and we need a county that’s prepared to step up to maintain that commitment.

✅Smart, sustainable and strategic local development that protects farmland and open space and builds the walkable, dense and mixed-use communities people want. We have to accommodate future growth and find a way to house folks who come here for good jobs and schools.

✅Standing up for our public employees and the critical services they provide, county government provides vital human services, mental health and addiction services, children and youth, courts and corrections. It’s a safety net for our most vulnerable and it’ll be under tremendous pressure in light of the disaster federal funding cuts. We need to protect and defend these services and have the backs of the men and women who provide them.

✅Investing in our quality of life from county assets like the Velodrome and Coca-Cola Park to our parks and trails. We need to make Lehigh County a place families want to stay for generations and continue to choose. Amenities and attractions are vital, it’s what anchors and keeps people here in the valley.

✅Tackling the epidemic of isolation and silos on the internet. We’ve never been more connected and disconnected at the same time. We need to get people back outside and build community, talk to our neighbors and build relationships. We have to rediscover our common identity and purpose.

Whether it’s protecting Cedar Brook, defending voting rights, funding the government, or protecting the safety net, Josh Siegel is easily the right choice. We don’t need to DOGE Lehigh County.

But you can watch the debate and make up your mind below.

https://www.wfmz.com/business/business-matters—lehigh-county-executive-debate/video_68d4b0aa-7047-5fd2-a943-2cac0da45fe7.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawNBSdxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtM64sjxWPq5C4suMvHWf3jGXBxeFodYQK3bt-fouxAeCFJQiCD-RDFUTBTf_aem_7ip1F-pB7mVeO2cGAjqypw

NFL Power Rankings, 9/24

/ Rich Wilkins / 12 Comments

Last week’s rankings.

The tough thing early in the season with trying to rank the NFL’s teams in order is how much to weigh your gut takes on each team against their records. Do I think that there are 2-1 teams better than 3-0 teams, or even 1-2 teams better than 3-0 teams? Yeah, I do. Do I think beating the Giants 22-9 is a sign your team might not be good? Yes. Sorry, but some things just have to be quantified by your gut instinct. On the other hand, your record is who you are. Sure, there are still some frauds going into week four, but a few weeks down the road, those things will take care of themselves. For now, record is the #1 criteria. Then it’s opinion. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s personnel decisions that dictate order, like the Giants putting Jaxson Dart in to start the rest of the season. That feels to me like a team who is done already for the year.

  1. Philadelphia Eagles
  2. Buffalo Bills
  3. Los Angeles Chargers
  4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  5. Indianapolis Colts
  6. San Francisco 49’ers
  7. Los Angeles Rams
  8. Green Bay Packers
  9. Detroit Lions
  10. Washington Commanders
  11. Seattle Seahawks
  12. Minnesota Vikings
  13. Jacksonville Jaguars
  14. Arizona Cardinals
  15. Cincinnati Bengals
  16. Pittsburgh Steelers
  17. Kansas City Chiefs
  18. Atlanta Falcons
  19. Denver Broncos
  20. Baltimore Ravens
  21. Las Vegas Raiders
  22. Chicago Bears
  23. New England Patriots
  24. Dallas Cowboys
  25. Carolina Panthers
  26. Cleveland Browns
  27. Houston Texans
  28. Tennessee Titans
  29. New Orleans Saints
  30. New York Jets
  31. Miami Dolphins
  32. New York Giants

Charlie Kirk, the Weaponized Martyr

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Last week I wrote about Charlie Kirk at length. My message was simple- this was a horrible tragedy, this is not a right-left political violence problem, and we’re being over force-fed “us vs. them” info. I went on to talk about how Kirk’s death and the hyper-partisan reactions were playing out locally, and how Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Kirk fit into the larger war on liberal comedy. For those of you who read me regularly, you know this is a lot of typing for me about Charlie Kirk, who had never once been mentioned on my blog before his death. I don’t talk about really any of the MAGA podcast/influencer folks- not Laura Loomer, Nick Fuentes, not even Tucker Carlson. It’s not so much that they are insignificant to me, I acknowledge they have large audiences and a good deal of influence with MAGA leaders all the way up to Donald Trump. I think talking about them is complicated and takes a lot of nuance that you can’t really have in every post. They are not elected officials or government officials who have direct powers to help or hurt us as a society or individuals. I don’t listen to or read any of them, other than when I come across their tweets and other posts, most of which I don’t agree with (occasionally I do, but even a broken clock is right twice a day). On the other hand, and definitely in part because they are not empowered government officials, I absolutely support their first amendment right to speak whatever they wish, free from any government censorship. On the other hand, if they lie or defame people, they should have to deal with their employers, funders, and civil lawsuits from individuals for their actions. I just kind of think their world is largely none of my business, I’m not one of their consumers.

So all the writing about Kirk does kind of prove a right-wing talking point- Kirk is larger in death than he ever was in life. I didn’t give a shit about him a month ago. Now I’m writing about him. But are my writing about the actual person Charlie Kirk, or whitewashed character that has only marginal ties to the actual person? David A. Graham of the Atlantic writes about this, and concludes that this is literally an affront to the actual person Charlie Kirk was. He writes beautifully about the irony in this mythological version of Charlie Kirk:

Kirk’s commitment to debate was inextricable from his political views; he wasn’t a value-neutral advocate for free speech. Kirk arose as a countercultural figure and deployed the First Amendment as a crucial tool for spreading his ideas: In an environment where they were not welcome, he pointed out that they were protected. Now that Kirk’s political allies hold power, however, many appear eager to suppress ideas they dislike. The Trump administration is vowing to use Kirk’s death as an excuse to crack down on dissent even as it lionizes him for defending it.

Kirk began his career planting Turning Point USA chapters on college campuses. As many conservatives were writing off academia, Kirk was evangelizing, creating a beachhead for right-wing views in traditionally liberal environments. Free speech was an important shield for him, because some of his ideas were bigoted, or articulated abrasively.

Some people now praising Kirk are conflating a commitment to argument with a devotion to civility. Kirk succeeded, in part, by eschewing civility in favor of conflict. He said, for example, that “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled—Alzheimer’s—corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.” (In the same radio show, he questioned whether Kamala Harris is Black.) He bused supporters to Washington on January 6, 2021; invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about the insurrection; and campaigned for pardons for the perpetrators.

Kirk railed against transgender and gay rights. He called George Floyd a “scumbag,” declared the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “mistake,” and claimed that many influential Black figures were in their roles only because of affirmative action. “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” he said. He said that if Donald Trump lost in 2024, hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants would be brought to Alabama, where they would “become your masters.” Comparisons to King are especially ironic because King, Kirk said, was “awful. He’s not a good person.”

I hold some inconvenient beliefs sometimes, but central to them is authenticity. Charlie Kirk said exactly what he said, and simply replaying or reprinting his words is not an attack on him, it is an honest rendering. I don’t agree with virtually any of Kirk’s beliefs about civil rights, Joe Biden, women voting, LGBTQIA rights, “DEI,” George Floyd, January 6th, Donald Trump, the 2020 Election, or really anything I can think of, besides his belief that he had a right to say it. I don’t think that people I deem as bad should be shot, ever. I don’t believe the government should try to cancel a television show, ever. Hell, I’ll just be honest and say I don’t think employers should have any absolute right to view your social media, or censor it, even as I acknowledge that isn’t covered by the First Amendment. I think people should have the ability to be their authentic selves, and in fact I think morally it is an imperative. Yes, if you are out in public (I at least on some level don’t consider social media public, particularly if you are protecting your posts from the entire public), saying something really crazy can get you fired. I typically do not think it should.

The truth of the matter is that even dangerously stupid and ignorant speech should be policed through the court of public opinion, and if your response is that this is failing in our current society, my response to that is this is who we actually, truly are. Trying to censor who we are because this “Trump era” makes you uncomfortable, or because you thought these kinds of opinions were supposed to be gone by 2025, is UnAmerican and morally reprehensible. If it bothers you that Charlie Kirk was amassing followers saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, or that he hated Barack Obama and Joe Biden, or that he thinks Kamala Harris is a moron, or that Martin Luther King Jr. was a bad man, or that women didn’t vote, or whatever it is you think- just understand that the people listening and agreeing with Kirk also agreed with what he was saying before he had a job saying it. These opinions and thoughts, they always existed in the world, and it’s not society’s formal job to silence people for saying them. You silence these opinions by not listening and not buying from the advertisers. Charlie Kirk should be able to speak to the audience that believes these things, just as Jimmy Kimmel should be allowed to do the same. There is a market of millions of people who agree with them. As long as that exists, they should exist, and we should make authentic judgments about how we feel about them. It’s pretty simple.

Of course, there is only one logical conclusion to this though- I didn’t like Charlie Kirk. I did not listen to him when he was alive, and I wouldn’t now. He told us how he feels about the role of women in our society, how he feels about Civil Rights in our society, that he thinks most Black Americans in the work place are of lower quality and that they are there because of DEI, that he thinks Donald Trump is a good man and Joe Biden is not, that LGBTQIA people are predators, and lots of other things. Charlie Kirk lived authentically and told us who he is. I did not approve of it. While I would not describe myself as a “Jasmine Crockett Stan,” but I think she’s right to question why any Democrats were voting to honor Kirk in the Congress. Do these Democrats agree with him on his beliefs? Did they agree when he was live? Or are they being inauthentic and cowardly, in hopes that this conversation will go away?

Charlie Kirk’s death has been weaponized to do things that some conservatives wanted to do anyway, like cancel Jimmy Kimmel. The conservatives doing it are being as dishonest as the Democrats in Congress voting to honor Kirk. This is all mythology. It’s creating a martyr of a person who was just a person. It’s gross and antithetical to being a health nation with a vibrant First Amendment. It’s creating a false narrative about who we actually are and who we actually want to be as a society.

“Crooksy” Adds More Endorsements From People Who Can’t Find Allentown on a Map

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

The less you know about Bob “Crooksy” Brooks, the more you like him. If you don’t know that he stiffed his ex-mother-in-law for $55k, you might think he’s working class. If you don’t know that he shares propaganda from groups that advocate political violence, you think maybe he’s a Democrat. If you don’t read what “Crooksy” says about Kaepernick, you think maybe he’s not a bigot. The more you know though, the less you like him.

“Crooksy” is running the Fetterman handbook for how to campaign though. He’s collecting endorsements, just none of them are from here. Democrat hating lunatic Bernie Sanders enthusiastically supports “Crooksy.” I doubt any local unions will support him after he had better things to do than come see them though. The truth is, the guy is awful and shouldn’t have run, and everyone around here knows it. If you don’t live in the Lehigh Valley though, there’s not too much harm in endorsing a guy that Ryan Mackenzie would crush. This is why state legislators from other parts of Pennsylvania love Crooksy. He’s probably not taking money from their constituents.

“Crooksy” is racking up the endorsements from leftists from other parts of the country though. In addition to the geriatric socialist from Vermont, he got the guy who got to be Bernie’s warm up act when he came to the Valley back in the Spring. I guess he figures no one in Pittsburgh will ever know. In case that’s not enough, he got the endorsement of California “Bernie Bro” Ro Khanna, who he wants you to know is a Pennsylvania native. He lives in Silicon Valley now, because you know, Bobby is a real working class icon here. Crooksy has lots of support from California and Vermont politicians. He has none from any working folks here.

Bob “Crooksy” Brooks looks great if you get to stay ten thousand feet away from him. If the Democratic Party is stupid enough to nominate this clown, Ryan Mackenzie won’t let any voters in the Lehigh Valley stay ten thousand feet away though. The racism, the violent political rhetoric, the stealing from his mother-in-law- Mackenzie will put it on our televisions, on our computer screens, and in our mailboxes. To be honest, we kind of deserve it if we’re dumb enough to allow it. None of the people who know Crooksy all that well want anything to do with him.

9/22 MLB Power Rankings

/ Rich Wilkins / 6 Comments

Well it’s the final week. All hell has broken lose. The Reds begin this week in the playoffs. So do the Guardians. I guess we’re in an Ohio State of Mind. Meanwhile, the Astros could miss. Things are insane. Here’s my last regular season rankings. Here’s last week’s for reference.

  1. The Milwaukee Brewers
  2. The Philadelphia Phillies
  3. The Toronto Blue Jays
  4. The Los Angeles Dodgers
  5. The Chicago Cubs
  6. The New York Yankees
  7. The Seattle Mariners
  8. The Boston Red Sox
  9. The San Diego Padres
  10. The Detroit Tigers
  11. The Cleveland Guardians
  12. The Houston Astros
  13. The Cincinnati Reds
  14. The New York Mets
  15. The Arizona Diamondbacks
  16. The Texas Rangers
  17. The Kansas City Royals
  18. The San Francisco Giants
  19. The Miami Marlins
  20. The St. Louis Cardinals
  21. The Tampa Bay Rays
  22. The Oakland Athletics
  23. The Baltimore Orioles
  24. The Atlanta Braves
  25. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
  26. The Minnesota Twins
  27. The Pittsburgh Pirates
  28. The Washington Nationals
  29. The Chicago White Sox
  30. The Colorado Rockies

For the record, #’s 1-20 are alive.

Would Bob “Crooksy” Brooks Kill the ACA?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

The Democratic Party should absolutely shut down the federal government, it’s not doing anything of value right now. If you need a specific reason to shut it down, the GOP is trying to strip away subsidies for people to buy the Affordable Care Act. This should simply be a red line. There is no good reason to strip health care away from more people. Of course our useless DEMOCRATIC U.S. Senator John Fetterman says he will fund the government anyway. In 2028, we need to be done with this bum. We can get a better trust fund baby Democrat, if not an actual good Democrat. Kick him to the curb.

Given that Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is running for Congress and would take the same votes, and has the same handlers telling him what to say and do, verbatim, we have to ask- would Bob “Crooksy” Brooks tell his constituents to go to hell too? Would he treat his constituents like his ex-mother-in-law? Will Brooks vote with the people he agrees with on social issues? Given this man’s record, we have to ask.

Every candidate in the PA-7 Democratic Primary should be answering though. I’ve seen posts from McClure and Obando-Derstine so far. I hope the rest let us know if they’re with us or against us.

Ok Kamala, You Have Me Laughing

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

Ok, I have to admit that when I first heard about Kamala Harris new book, I was annoyed. All of the early descriptions made it sound like she was ripping President Biden for running. She did go further than I liked, but she clearly wasn’t actually criticizing him.

So now we’re getting more and more from it. Don’t over read into what I’m going to post, but I was cracking up when I read it.

Harris described Shapiro, one of three finalists for the post, as “poised, polished and personable.” But she was put off by his ambition — and his request to be in the room for every major decision — and worried he would not settle for the number-two job.

Harris twice describes Shapiro as “peppering” her and staff with questions, not just about details of the job but also life as vice president. He asked the residence manager a number of questions about the home, ranging from the number of bedrooms to “how he might arrange to get Pennsylvania artists’ work on loan from the Smithsonian.”

She also accused Shapiro of exhibiting a “lack of discretion” in the veepstakes, recalling that his official vehicles with Pennsylvania plates were filmed by CNN in front of the vice president’s residence, despite efforts by her staff to arrange for less attention-getting transportation.

Manuel Bonder, a spokesperson for Shapiro, pushed back on the governor’s portrayal.

“It’s simply ridiculous to suggest that Governor Shapiro was focused on anything other than defeating Donald Trump and protecting Pennsylvania from the chaos we are living through now,” Bonder said in a statement. “The Governor campaigned tirelessly for the Harris-Walz ticket — and as he has made clear, the conclusion of this process was a deeply personal decision for both him and the Vice President.”

I could’ve called this in like 2008. The Deputy Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in 2007-2008 hasn’t changed a bit. Which doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be President, by the way. It just gave me a good laugh.