One of my favorite things the internet does well is bully Ben Shapiro. The jokes about him being unable to make his wife wet are fucking gold. Look, you might say bullying is bad, but I don’t always agree. When you are trying to make some contrarian, bullshit argument for why some 70 year old grandma should have to go get a job, I’m fine with literally everyone bullying you into the ether. Ben Shapiro is another bullshit right-wing millennial white boy that is very impressed with himself. I like that he gets picked on by the internet as a group.
I got a call from a little birdy yesterday (funniest description ever) about local political goings on. There was a lot of news, on all kinds of different topics. One piece of news though was hilarious to me.
A certain member of County Council, running for re-election in 2025, apparently has told people *they* (no I’m not giving it away) plan to introduce legislation at Northampton County Council tonight to scrap the County Executive and return to the three person commissioner system that most counties use.
Say what?
Northampton County passed a Home Rule Charter that basically serves as it’s constitution. That charter created an elected Executive to run the day-to-day goings of the government. Many other counties don’t have that, and are sort of ran by a part-time Commissioner board, but are mostly run by unelected bureaucrats and people who “go along to get along” running departments. They raise taxes whenever they feel like it, and tend to do what is most popular in the government center. They don’t give a shit about public sentiment and they only answer to a bunch of commissioners who don’t really know how the government runs, because they’re not there. It’s an awful system and it isn’t responsive to the public.
I’m not going to name this council person, I like them personally and I hope that posting this ahead of time discourages their poor behavior. They are not doing this because they believe it’s a good idea, they’re doing this because they do not like the current County Executive and they do not like who they think will be the next County Executive. This is petty politics at it’s worst, the kind of mean girl shit that will make life worse for the public. If you don’t like Lamont McClure, Phil Armstrong, Tara Zrinski, or any other person who tries to be County Executive, you run a campaign against them. If people elect a County Executive twice or more, you should just tip your cap- they do represent what the public wants. Running around talking about being a check on elected power, when the voters can kick out that official if they want, is simply living in denial. Deciding you’re going to get rid of the office because you think the voters are going to vote for a third time the opposite of what you think they should is anti-democracy behavior of the worst type. I know this kind of bullshit behavior is par for the course in MAGA right now, but hopefully we’re not going to see this individual try this crap with the county government.
Jimmy Carter made history with a deal between Egypt and Israel, but still couldn’t forge a lasting peace in the region. Bill Clinton got peace accords signed between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and then very nearly got a permanent agreement creating two states, but he came up narrowly short thanks to Arafat. Barack Obama got a nuclear deal with Iran and removed many of the standing issues between the United States and the Middle Eastern nations, but still couldn’t build a lasting peace. Joe Biden ended our long occupation of Afghanistan and tried very hard to hammer down a lasting agreement in Gaza, but he couldn’t get it done. Of course the Bush Presidencies were bogged down in the region and did not leave popular in the region, and Reagan was illegally playing both sides of a brutal war in the region, so he’s not loved either.
To hear Donald Trump tell it, he has been more successful in the region. He negotiated the Abraham Accords, and has convinced multiple Arab states to recognize Israel. Now he has negotiated a new ceasefire in Gaza. This is driving some people nuts, as Trump and his followers are saying he should win the Nobel Peace Prize now. While that is ridiculously silly, Trump has had some real successes in the region. You have to be a total partisan hack to say otherwise. But why is this man succeeding there?
The long and short of why Arab states are willing to deal with Trump in ways they did not with previous U.S. Presidents is simple- they agree with him and share common goals. Past Republican Administrations had neoconservative leanings and wanted to spread democracy across the region, a goal Trump could not give two shits about, and a goal that most Middle Eastern leaders reject. Past Democratic Administrations very much wanted a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, and from 1948 to today, no Middle Eastern country has really wanted that to happen, especially not the countries closest to the West Bank and Gaza, while Trump has shown no real inkling of wanting a Palestinian nation to exist on any sort of terms that Palestinians would want. Past Democratic nations have also wanted to take up issues of human rights abuses in the region, which Trump is completely disinterested in. Trump is interested in making money with some of the rulers in the Middle East though, something they are very interested in with him as well. In short, his interests basically align with most of their’s, so they’re happy to deal with him.
There is of course the Israeli side of this, and again, I think this comes down to simple interests. Past U.S. Administrations have wanted a two state solution, and governments in Israel after Oslo I have either opposed that outright or been wary of it. While I think Netanyahu has tested Trump’s patience a bit by not just giving him the headlines he wants, in the end neither has any burning interest in a two-state solution. Netanyahu may prefer a “Hot War” to a “Cold War” with Hamas, but even in a ceasefire state he can continue to make the case for his right-wing positions on the Palestinians as long as Hamas is there. Trump is fine with Hamas being there, as long as they sign his ceasefire to make him look good. Neither Hamas or Bibi Netanyahu have any real interest in ending this state of war. Trump has no interest in making them do so. They’re all pretty happy with it.
Now, I don’t think you really need to worry about Trump winning a Nobel Peace Prize, if you really care all that much about it (I don’t). The prize is based in Oslo, Norway, and the politics behind who wins it are largely driven by Western European politics. On the issue of Gaza, Western Europe is basically moving the goalposts so far left on Trump now that they will not have to really consider giving it to him. Governments across Western Europe are going for full-blown Palestinian statehood, which is fairly popular with their publics, which is frankly a position that Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden all could not have met realistically in a real political sense. So Trump’s position on a ceasefire will still look fairly reactionary to most of Western Europe, and his reluctance to full embrace Ukraine in their war with Russia will disqualify him across the continent. In short, they’re not going to give him the prize, no matter what.
With that all said, we shouldn’t all dismiss this ceasefire agreement, or at least the desire for one, out of hand. Israel had every right to respond after October 7th, but both their government and Hamas have drug this conflict out well beyond what was necessary or useful. The return of any remaining Israeli hostages and a halt to the violence that is killing thousands of Palestinians each month is a good thing for both groups of people. While I think anything short of the eradication of Hamas is a recipe for future disaster, that doesn’t make this deal a bad short-term thing.
Some things are bigger than our feelings about Trump, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.
California gubernatorial hopeful Katie Porter snapped and tried to storm out of an interview after being asked a simple question about President Trump. pic.twitter.com/4AiV9qnmCl
I was never a fan of Katie Porter and her white board. Or her reading a book during the State of the Union. I was never impressed when she just yelled at witnesses during House Oversight Committee Hearings (I’m not impressed with the existence of the Oversight Committee, it serves zero purpose for the general public and writes no laws.). She was just not my cup of tea. She generally votes right and was fine as a Congresswoman, but I was disappointed when she gave up her swing seat to run a quixotic campaign against Adam Schiff for Senate, when literally the entire Democratic Party wanted him. I’m not much of a fan.
The shame when a party wins a wave election is that it drags in some good and some bad candidates. You have people that win in tough swing districts because they’re good candidates, and others who do so because they’re lucky. Then you also have people drug in through the tide who win very safe seats that have no broader appeal to the national electorate, but the Squad is a discussion for another day. The shame of course is when the good candidates in tough districts eventually lose their seats, a lot of activists and donors think *those* are the weaker candidates, and people like Porter are somehow a real future star. That’s how we end up where we are.
So in Porter’s case, the question was absolutely stupid. Why would she need the 40% of voters in California who voted for the losing candidate to help her win? Why not just win over most of the 60% who voted for the winning candidate? If you want to ask if she has any intentions of being bipartisan, go ahead, but don’t act like you can’t do math. Porter’s reaction was also amateur hour. Just give the standard bullshit “I’m working for every vote,” or go with the partisan “I’m concentrating on the Californians who share our vision for the future,” or some shit. Why storm out, it’s not like the reporter called you an asshole? This interview was below the public discourse in 2025, and well, that’s a major achievement.
People like Porter just don’t go away though. A few candidates meet an archetype that is popular with an activist crowd, and it’s a disease that takes a long time to get out of your blood. Amy McGrath is begging you to light your money on fire for her again in Kentucky, where she wants to lose for Mitch McConnell’s seat and raise $100 million again. It’s honestly not going to happen, just go fail up and run for President at this point. Mikie Sherrill might pull out the win in New Jersey, but that’s only because it’s New Jersey. Her campaign of a noun+a verb+fighter pilot+Trump+an inaudible sound is about as inspiring as week old bread, which is just fine as long as she wins, but does give people watching a few skipped heart beats that aren’t necessary. Then there’s James Talarico in Texas and Graham Platner in Maine, both running for Senate seats they are grossly unqualified for on the genius notion that the Democratic Party sucks, and if only we nominate the “working class white guy savior,” we’ll be fine. All of these rising stars, created by a combination of insular DC Democratic operatives, rich out of touch donors, and activists. Could it be that we lose elections because we nominate bad candidates? Could it be that we nominate bad candidates because we look for them in all the wrong places?
The government is shut down. Good. The truth is that the Republicans are in the majority in both houses of Congress. They also hold the White House. If they want to fund this government, they should figure out a way. What is this government doing that someone who disagrees with Donald Trump should want to continue?
This fight is not about illegal immigrants getting health care from the government. That is illegal now, and does not happen on any meaningful level. Medicare and Medicaid have plenty of safe guards now against giving a policy to non-citizens. If you wanted to make sure those programs and the VA and ACA had literal zero illegal immigrants on policies, you’d give them more money, not less, so they could enforce it better. This is all just excuses from Donald Trump.
This fight is about the ACA and affordable health care in America. Cutting subsidies for premiums under the ACA simply will raise the amount of money people pay for a plan. If premiums are higher, less people will buy plans. Because less people are buying, plans will become more expensive people who buy plans. It’s a nasty cycle, and the reason most of the 20 million or so on “Obamacare” plans didn’t just buy an insurance plan before. The whole market is cheaper with more people on it. With less people insured, you get more people showing up at hospitals and clinics and receiving care they will never pay for. The hospitals and clinics then make up that money by charging insurers more for the people they are covering. Simply put, health care is cheaper on the micro (household) level with more people insured than less. Cutting subsidies to the ACA is a rate hike even for people like me, who don’t accept the subsidy.
Aside from the multitude of horrific things the current government is doing that Democrats should have no interest in paying for, there’s no point in screwing up the health care market because you don’t like the President who designed it. Keep the government shut down. If the Republicans want to fund it, let them figure it out. If they want Democrats to help, they can cave on health insurance premiums. Otherwise there is no harm in shutting it down and keeping it down. Democrats were voted out, we’re under no obligation to help them.
Meet Scott Presler, aka the persistence. He takes a lot of credit for Trump winning a couple of elections. This guy has been hanging out in York County and Berks County. Don’t be afraid though, he says he’s harmless.
I waited a few days to write about Charlie Kirk for a number of reasons. The first thing is, I didn’t watch his show while he was alive, so I had no strong, informed opinion about him. I knew I didn’t agree with him much, but that was about it. Second, the rhetoric got so toxic between a lot of people last week that stupid things got said. Some on the left said stupid things, like the world is better off with him dead. Some on the right decided to call for Civil War, as though these keyboard warriors were suddenly revolutionaries. Frankly the entire internet debate was toxic. I didn’t need to write about it until putting some thought into it.
As I said, I just wasn’t really a fan. I also really didn’t think about him much, let alone hate him. The best thing I ever did for my mental health after 2020 was to stop watching 24/7 political news and punditry. Charlie Kirk had his views, I didn’t particularly love them, but he had a right to say them. He also had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, certainly free from fear of violence. American society failed to provide him that. Any time any person anywhere is killed by another person, that is a bad thing. It is a sad thing. Any time anyone, anywhere is killed over politics, that’s a bad thing, period, full stop. Yes, there are deaths in most revolutions, including our American Revolution, but most revolutions are not fought over differing opinions. The King of England was denying Americans their inalienable rights. Charlie Kirk was saying things you didn’t like on a podcast. Anyone actually involved in politics should be calling for a harsh punishment for the murderer, not trying to twist themselves in a knot to defend it. Political violence is simply always bad. A 33 year old father being shot in front of a live audience because the shooter didn’t like what he said is bad. It’s really that simple and that’s as far as it has to go. No further. I’m not going to make Charlie Kirk more in death to me than he was in life. I’m not going to change my mind about his message. I’m simply going to state unequivocally that Charlie Kirk deserved to be alive. I don’t really care what he said, that doesn’t change.
A little more reality for the American Right- we didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. This kid grew up in conservative, red-state Utah, with Trump loving parents who were very religious. Utah Valley University isn’t exactly in some liberal bastion. Reports are that this kid had a “transexual lover,” but even those reports are murky and don’t really give much context. Some reports say he lived with this person, but records contradict that. Regardless of who this kid loved, there is zero sign at all that he ever became a Democrat, or that he had any intention of helping Democrats through this insane act. The murderer is a scumbag and should pay, the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree with you, regardless of what we think of Kirk. Trying to turn this into some sort of rallying cry to start a civil war is connecting dots that don’t exist.
And now for the left- you don’t have to say much. You are under no obligation to mourn Charlie Kirk. You don’t have to build him a monument. You don’t have to say much of anything at all. You also don’t have to say anything negative about the dead, as has unfortunately happened. There is no virtue in it, whether you’re factually “correct” or not. The people who are cheering negative comments about a dead person they didn’t like politically are not new converts drawn to your intellectually “correct” position, they are people who already agreed with you and voted like you. You are speaking in an echo chamber, and frankly it’s an echo chamber that has not faired well for Democrats. Obviously there are many who disagree with your position that the world is better off with Charlie Kirk dead. There are many, many more who simply roll their eyes at this kind of talk- at best for you, they don’t care, at worst they’re just sick and tired of anyone saying it and are put off by it. It does not matter if you are “right” or not here. The vast majority of the public doesn’t want to hear this kind of talk. They don’t think better of you because you “said it how it is” on Charlie Kirk. Really.
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, what happened is awful. I wonder how many people will consider why we’re here though. We have 24/7 political cable news. There are “twitter personalities,” streamers, and other pundits out there putting content into the world. Most of them make their money by appealing to the most zealous of people that agree with them. As a result, they pump out talking points and rhetoric calling their opponents traitors, predators, criminals, and bums. Are there people who are deadbeat bums in our politics? Yes. Have we over used all of this inflammatory rhetoric at this point? Also yes. Constantly telling those who will listen that we are in crisis and the opposition is dangerous, well that eventually has consequences. There is always someone not nearly as stable as you reading the words, and they may decide to act. If you’re going to call someone a deadbeat, make sure it’s justified. Shootings like this are becoming more common, not less.
This Goof Represents The Most Swing District in America.
There’s not many scenarios where Democrats win the House in 2026 and don’t win PA-7. Joe Biden won it in 2020, Donald Trump did so in 2024, and both times the margins look similar to the state margin, and Pennsylvania basically is the tipping point state right now. One of the reasons I never registered to vote anywhere else while out on the road (besides the fact I was coming back) was that I really do live in the most swing spot in the country.
So it seems that the DCCC may not have been as thrilled with how the race was shaping up. Fundraising amongst the candidates in the field wasn’t matching up with the more metropolis swing districts in New York and California. That sort of makes sense though. There’s not a lot of big donor money in this district. The big donors in Philadelphia and New York are hesitant to put money into a competitive primary. So two of the three candidates are finding it a little harder to raise cash than expected. The other, we’ll just say he’s problematic. Problematic in big ways. Problematic in many ways.
I can’t blame the DCCC for going looking for more candidates. Why not? The more seats you can put on the board, the better. If you don’t feel absolutely great about the candidates you have, keep finding more. Competition should be fierce for an important job. Right? Unfortunately, maybe the DCCC is not looking in the right direction. The candidate they are supposedly recruiting now has some, let’s just say, issues.
Out of respect for the man, I won’t name this first time candidate, yet. He has never held public office, but he has spent his career working for the public. He’s got no experience being a candidate though, and running for Congress is not the place to learn. Digging in a little deeper, things get a little difficult for him though. A friend whom I will not name dropped me a note on the guy today, and he’s got some problems that will dog him in his race. He’s been in foreclosure twice, in 2012 and 2016. One could write that off, all of us normal people have financial problems at some point. He also had a $5,000 legal judgment rendered against him to Midland Bank, which sounds like a credit card or some small loan that he failed to pay. Again, no judgment here. This part of what they told me stuck out though. It goes well beyond just some hard economic times:
He borrowed $55,000.00 from his mother-in-law. Signed a promissory note. Refused to pay. Got sued. Had a trial. Lost. Appealed. Lost. There is currently a unsatisfied $55,000.00 judgment hanging over his head.
Ok, look, there’s being a working class guy that is behind on some bills, which I think we all can sympathize with. Congress could use more guys that understand that feeling. Then there’s stiffing your mother-in-law for $55k and not paying it back even after you lose in court twice. This friend goes on to note that there’s also a divorce with the potential candidate’s first wife out there, which they don’t know what is in there. I don’t know if this was mother-in-law one or mother-in-law two, but I’m guessing this judgment was from the first one. If that’s the case, I’m sure that divorce is messy and I’ll probably get something sent my way on that later.
Stiffing old ladies isn’t a good look. Especially when it fits with a pattern of being bad with money. Stiffing a family member makes it look like maybe the money problems aren’t just a case of tough times, but maybe something worse. It’s hard to tell, but I will bet bourbons to beers that Ryan Mackenzie and the Republican Party will take information like this and absolutely slime this guy if he’s nominated. By the end he’ll be the symbol of elder abuse and financial misconduct in America, not the next Congressman.
This new candidate has went around the district telling people he will enter with the public support of the DCCC, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and the Democratic Leader in the House. I find it hard to believe any of them would be so stupid as to promise all of that to a candidate without doing a little more research than this friend of mine did before sending this info to me. In fact, I first met the Governor like twenty years ago when he was a State House member, the guy is way too smart to put himself into a nasty, competitive primary like this right before re-election (and maybe a run for President?). I definitely don’t see that happening, once they do their research.
Campaigns are hard. This guy has had an honorable career serving the public. This may be biting off a bit more than could be chewed.
You can’t make this up if you try. No, really. Crosswell’s first finance report is out. It’s incredibly bad. Don’t take my word for it. From Lehigh Valley News:
Crosswell, the latest candidate to enter the race, raised more than $320,929 in just three weeks, records show.
That amount, which came entirely from individual donors, led the field of Democrats. After expenditures, he had $254,003 on hand as of the end of June, according to the reports.
Crosswell resigned from the U.S. Justice Department in protest after the Trump administration opted to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams for political reasons.
His campaign, which has focused on upholding the rule of law, appears to have attracted significant support from the legal community. Dozens of attorneys from across the country have donated to his campaign, records show.
However, it appears almost none of the money he’s raised came from within the district.
LehighValleyNews.com identified only a single donation from within the Lehigh Valley or Carbon County on the 200-page report — a $500 contribution from an Allentown woman.
The dearth of local donations could feed more political attacks that cast him as a carpetbagger. Crosswell, a former Marine, moved to the district earlier this year and switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic in December. The Pottsville native had no prior ties to the district other than athletic competitions in high school. His three opponents have accused him of district shopping — a claim Crosswell denies.
For a moment I’ll leave aside the false narrative that the Adams decision pushed him to run and let the rest speak for itself. Croswell got exactly one person to donate to his campaign from the district. One. This guy isn’t even pretending to represent the Lehigh Valley, he’s trying to buy his way into our seat with a bunch of lawyers from North Carolina, DC, California, and God knows where else paying his tab. I’m sure if we looked over their voter registrations, plenty of them are his buddies from his union busting days in the Republican Party, but it really doesn’t matter if they aren’t. They aren’t from the Lehigh Valley. That’s fine with Crosswell though, because neither is he.
I’ll just point out though something that is just as bad, especially if you’re a solid Democrat who believes in the policies and values of the Democratic Party. While raising $321k, he couldn’t find one Democratic group to back him. Not a single PAC gave him money. Not one union. No pro-choice organization. No environmental group. Nobody. This is because he has long held the values of the Republican Party when he went to work and vote. One has to worry now that if he does find a group to give him money, it will be because he basically sells himself. He came into this with none of our values. This whole campaign is being astroturfed by union busters and Beltway elites.
The other two Democratic candidates have not matched Crosswell so far, which can be expected based on past Lehigh Valley congressional primaries. This isn’t a wealthy district, and this happens to be where they made their actual lives and careers. They’re from here, and they’re Democrats. I certainly have my preference, but I could probably deal with either one being our nominee. Being honest about who you are is the first and most important step to asking for someone’s vote.
“Why do all of these rich tech bros think Donald Trump is a moderate? They spend all this money. pushing a right-wing agenda and then people actually believe it’s moderate.”
This was the prompt of a recent conversation I had, and well, it’s a fascinating one. Donald Trump did have a lot of rich “moderates” behind him, didn’t he? Hillary Clinton was simultaneously beat on by alt-left dead-enders for basically being Dick Cheney, and also viewed as too left by a lot of voters. Kamala Harris is about as “normie Democrat” as you can be on policy at this point, but she was viewed as the extremist by a lot of voters, not Trump. Why did this happen?
I tend to not really want “big change” policy moves, and so I have a tendency to like and support actual moderate policy. I think it’s highly important that we don’t mistake actual fairly moderate policy for being a political moderate though. There is no real pocket of voters out there giving you credit for say, taking a moderate position on abortion rights, for example (codification of Roe in it’s original, two-trimester form that allows some regulations of procedures and when you can access care). Not many voters gave Senators any credit for moderate positions on immigration or gun control in the past 15 years. Taking actual moderate policy positions often times leaves you in the bullseye of your own party’s activists and gets you no credit from the opposition.
One of the key reasons both parties (and not at all the only reason) could not properly handle Donald Trump is that both are fairly ideologically homogeneous. Democrats fight over how to get people health insurance, they don’t fight over whether or not to do it. Voters don’t really view you as more moderate for preferring the Affordable Care Act over government Bernie-care for All (it’s not Medicare, really). Same on the Republican side, they have some disagreements over how far to go on deporting illegal aliens and whether or not they’ll allow bare minimum background checks for all gun sales. No one is literally arguing for a path to amnesty or for blocking some gun sales in the GOP. Both parties have their positions, and there are degrees of separation in them, but even a moderate is still basically a member of one or the other. Voters don’t really see moderates as different.
Most of the reason is that lower information voters and honestly voters in general are far less ideological than voters who are activists, staffers, or candidates. They personally hold views that are not always consistent. For instance I know friends that vote regularly and are pro-gay marriage (and lgbtq rights in general) and pro-life. Anti-war and love going to the shooting range. Anti-immigrant and pro-marijuana. Many non-politically active voters actually very commonly hold views that are ideologically contradictory. When they think of a moderate, they think of someone who breaks out from party orthodoxy, like they do. And there’s a lot of them- a third of Americans identify as moderate and 43% consider themselves an independent.
When faced with Trump’s sometimes bizarre campaign positions- being for mass deportation, but against any foreign military action, or being pro-life while also being for ending taxes on tips and social security- a lot of these voters feel more comfortable with that. Very disciplined candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris actually pay a price for not saying anything all that shocking. Voters who want “moderate” are often times just telling you they want something different, and an ideologically consistent candidate isn’t it.
Obviously identity plays into how a candidate is perceived, and some portion of the public understands the “left-right continuum” in a traditional way. Part of this is just a basic disconnect though. Political people are thinking about moderates as actually being moderate. Normal voters are thinking of moderates as more free wheeling and less careful. That fits Trump perfectly. It’s also now his biggest vulnerability, as he governs. How long until the public realizes he’s the definition of a conservative?
Apocalypse Vibes 