Even the Wall Street Journal critizing former Marine Corporal JD Vance!
Echo opinion letter published in Midland Daily News, in Midland Michigan.
THE VANCE CATFIGHT — The WSJ editorial board is joining the pile-on over Sen. JD VANCE’s (R-Ohio) comments about “childless cat ladies.”- published in Politico's "Playbook", by Ryan Lizza, Eugene Daniels, Garrett Ross and Bethany Irvine.
In a tough piece posted last night, Paul Gigot and colleagues call the comment “the sort of smart-aleck crack that gets laughs in certain right-wing male precincts” but that “doesn’t play well with the millions of female voters, many of them Republican, who will decide the presidential race.”
They see the speed and breadth of the coverage of Vance’s remark as evidence “that this is Mr. Vance’s first big cultural impression, and not a good one.”
The WSJ editorial board are unimpressed with Vance’s efforts to clean things up on Megyn Kelly’s podcast yesterday (“he wasn’t at all apologetic”), and they come away with this surprising conclusion about the episode: “One possibility is that at some level Mr. Vance really doesn’t respect people who make different life choices.”
And then they move on to attack some of Vance’s other past (👽👺weird) ideas. His proposal that families without children should pay higher taxes is “bad policy” and “bad politics” and would amount to using the tax code “as a political and cultural weapon against people who don’t share his values.”
The editorial gives voice to what’s been a quiet murmur we’ve been hearing from some corners of the right all week: Does DONALD TRUMP regret picking Vance? (Ya'think❓😒😵😮)
The Trump campaign “can’t be happy about having to defend” Vance instead of attacking VP KAMALA HARRIS, the Journal writes. They end with a stinging conclusion about how Vance should start using his wife as a surrogate because USHA VANCE “might help persuade swing voters that Mr. Vance respects women more than his comments have made it seem.”
The piece is a notable escalation of the war within the GOP over the Vance pick. The (WSJ) Journal editorial board has sharply divergent views from Vance on foreign policy and trade and doesn’t have much use for his populist bashing of corporations. RUPERT MURDOCH reportedly lobbied Trump not to select Vance, and Vance allies see this piece as simply the continuation of that fight, with the Journal doing Murdoch’s bidding.
Former Marine Corporal J.D. Vance either received a poor legal education or he has adopted the Donald Trump attitude toward the constitution which is that of disdain.
I heard J.D. Vance say he would have done the opposite of Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. He would have sent everyone home with instructions to seat the alternate (fake) electors and then come back. If that is the kind of character he has, he should not hold any office and should not represent that he has a law degree.
From Mark Brissette, from Sanford, a village in Michigan
From Mark Brissette, from Sanford, a village in Michigan
And wait....❗😉there's more from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)...
 |
| Get a chuckle out of this Google Doodle on July 29, 2024. 😀😉 |
THE VANCE CATFIGHT — The WSJ editorial board is joining the pile-on over Sen. JD VANCE’s (R-Ohio) comments about “childless cat ladies.”- published in Politico's "Playbook", by Ryan Lizza, Eugene Daniels, Garrett Ross and Bethany Irvine.
In a tough piece posted last night, Paul Gigot and colleagues call the comment “the sort of smart-aleck crack that gets laughs in certain right-wing male precincts” but that “doesn’t play well with the millions of female voters, many of them Republican, who will decide the presidential race.”
They see the speed and breadth of the coverage of Vance’s remark as evidence “that this is Mr. Vance’s first big cultural impression, and not a good one.”
The WSJ editorial board are unimpressed with Vance’s efforts to clean things up on Megyn Kelly’s podcast yesterday (“he wasn’t at all apologetic”), and they come away with this surprising conclusion about the episode: “One possibility is that at some level Mr. Vance really doesn’t respect people who make different life choices.”
And then they move on to attack some of Vance’s other past (👽👺weird) ideas. His proposal that families without children should pay higher taxes is “bad policy” and “bad politics” and would amount to using the tax code “as a political and cultural weapon against people who don’t share his values.”
The editorial gives voice to what’s been a quiet murmur we’ve been hearing from some corners of the right all week: Does DONALD TRUMP regret picking Vance? (Ya'think❓😒😵😮)
The Trump campaign “can’t be happy about having to defend” Vance instead of attacking VP KAMALA HARRIS, the Journal writes. They end with a stinging conclusion about how Vance should start using his wife as a surrogate because USHA VANCE “might help persuade swing voters that Mr. Vance respects women more than his comments have made it seem.”
The piece is a notable escalation of the war within the GOP over the Vance pick. The (WSJ) Journal editorial board has sharply divergent views from Vance on foreign policy and trade and doesn’t have much use for his populist bashing of corporations. RUPERT MURDOCH reportedly lobbied Trump not to select Vance, and Vance allies see this piece as simply the continuation of that fight, with the Journal doing Murdoch’s bidding.
Labels: childless cat ladies, Google Doodle, January 6, MidLand Daily News, Paul Gigot, Politico, Rupert Murdoch
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 6:30 AM
|
0 comments
