Liberal Blog Upset Readers Tired of Their Tiresome Biden Coverage

Lawyers, Drugs, & Money is a blog I have read and written comments for since the Obama Administration. It leans liberal. 

Erik Loomis, a historian, has regular posts about labor history and graves he visited with mini-biographies. He also talks about other things, at times talking a bit like an asshole. He had a recent blog about Japanese convenience stores where his old man shaking his fist at cloud came out.

Scott talks about law and politics. Robert Farley, an original, speaks about foreign policy from time to time. The one regular woman contributor is Cheryl Roper. She is the only one (except for someone who rarely posts) not joining in with the "we are doomed, Biden must go" drumbeat.

There is also Paul Campos. He's a law professor but he usually doesn't talk about law, except to make some extreme knee-jerk comments (like comparing Lawrence v. Texas with Bush v. Gore as both being all about values, nothing about law). He replaced an even-headed woman who talked foreign policy. So, we now get "Sotomayor must go" stuff. 

Elizabeth Nelson (a musician) sometimes talks about music. 

The main guys went into as I said doom mood since the debate. Over and over again. At times, one or more tossed potshots at President Biden's physical and mental well-being. At least one spread unfounded rumors. People who pushed back were told they were naive fools.

Erik Loomis already had a "what?" post. Loomis sometimes "bluntly tells the truth" in comments by grumpily calling out people as fools and such. Team members preaching about tone is a bit much. 

Now, we get another from Farley. It seems the critics are the problem. We don't like hard truths. We are being too mean. And more tiresome stuff. It has a feel of someone aggrieved like a certain law professor who was upset when protestors strongly opposed him on Gaza. Me? I'm the good guy!

You covered the ground. You talked about it. It has been weeks now. Let it go. It's your blog. This is my space. I try not to be stupid about things even if I have every right to be so. And, almost literally no one reads me. You actually have a broad following, shown by the replies to the posts alone. 

This year didn't start off that great in my view and darn if it is not going that well mid-way in. When will the Mets go into a slump?

Teamster President Speaks

Meanwhile, we have the Republican Convention, and James David Vance as the vice presidential candidate. A young mini-Trump with a beard. 

The Teamsters president spoke and is scheduled for the Democrats too. Some LGM commenter was glad, noting it was just union red meat, and nothing about Republicans. Not quite. As I replied there ...

"President Trump had the backbone ... no one else would" invite him. He's "one tough SOB." A bit of pandering. To be expected. You speak to your audience at least a little bit.

He talked about Republicans, including how their union endorsed Republicans in the past, and how some Republicans worked with them. He praised Josh Hawley, for instance, repeatedly.

He also praised JD Vance, Roger Marshall (one of the few senators who voted to challenge the electors in 2021), and other Republicans. These Republicans "truly care about working people."

I understand him speaking to both sides. That is what lobbyists should do -- try to get support from both parties. A lot of what he says is great. OTOH, Republicans will assure us that they overall support that sort of thing too.

Him speaking at the convention is a good talking point to the workers who support Trump/Vance. The backers know what the guy stands for. 

Vance speaks -- like him -- against "elites," which the people there code as Biden and the Deep State.

They want "change." So, a Trump presidency, the true populist! The deep pockets will understand. They know you have to give something to the little people.

== 

Some of the delegates might have been a bit surprised at the message but they seemed to be fine with it overall. Again, it's fine he was there. His job really.

Update: I thought he went too far supporting Hawley (he was name-checked multiple times) and now he went for him again, even when his position has offensive stuff. The union seems to be at best dubious about his strategy. Ultimately, it's their call.