- Upon returning to Minnesota with his proverbial tail tucked between his legs after being on the losing 2024 presidential ticket, Gov. Tim Walz just didn't seem to have his heart in his job anymore. That's perfectly understandable since it's obviously more exhilarating to bash the Trump administration at town halls full of barking, clapping seals as opposed to answering questions about the near $1 billion of taxpayers funds lost due to waste, fraud and abuse.
As such, the outside chance Walz may not seek a third gubernatorial term has turned into a realistic possibility.
Walz was knocked off course by the June 14 assassination of Melissa Hortman, who was his close friend and governing partner in the Minnesota House, according to several people with knowledge of his thought process. His reluctance also comes at a time when he could face headwinds if he runs for re-election, after a failed vice presidential bid that eroded his popularity in parts of the state.
His hesitation has been noticed by party activists and officials, several of whom put the odds of him running in 2026 at 50-50.
A bench of Democrats is eager to run if the seat opens up in a state where Republicans haven’t won the governor’s office in nearly 20 years.
For those tempted to rejoice over the possibility of Walz moving on, I'd ask you to keep in mind Mitch Berg's law entitled Cano’s Corollary to Berg’s 21st Law:
MSNBC will change its name to MS Now, for My Source News Opinion World (ed. - more like Myopic Simps No One Watches, amirite?!?!), and unveil a new logo this year as part of the cable news channel’s spinoff from the Comcast-owned media company NBCUniversal.
I've been saying for some time now that if there is a pile of feces to be stepped in, prog will grind it into the ground with their collective heels.
The MSNBC rebrand got multiple sclerosis trending. In case you're wondering how it's going.
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) August 18, 2025
I just want to meet the absolute bandit who got MSNBC execs to fork over tons of $$$ for this logo and a name that reminds you of multiple sclerosis. I bet he hates them and can’t believe they used it. pic.twitter.com/WACo5A8fdW
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) August 18, 2025
As if we already didn't have enough compassion for those afflicted with multiple sclerosis. This is just downright cruel.
- I've been a fan of the Minnesota Vikings for nearly a half century. And while the franchise has made plenty of unflattering news over the years that had nothing to do with play on the field, this latest "controversy" is perhaps the most nonsensical.
My first reaction was "Wow, I'm glad to see the team brought back Chris Kluwe in some capacity!" Alas, I was mistaken. The mustachioed dude was not Kluwe.
Seriously, do any guys watch NFL games for the cheerleaders? Granted, NFL fans are largely comprised of red-blooded American heterosexual males who are more than fine with gratuitous shots of hot babes gyrating on the sidelines. However, that doesn't even come close to superseding their passion for the game itself.
Erick Erickson summed it up nicely.
My hot take is that I watch NFL games for the football, not the cheerleaders, and I find it deeply hilarious to see some very loud Christian social media influencers perfectly fine with the prosti-tot cheerleading outfits as the girls shake their boobs and gyrate, but are outraged at the gay male cheerleaders. Slutting up the ladies for the married men to look at is fine and how dare they bring gay men into this safe space designed to objectify the ladies.
Sorry, but this is overblown to me.
It absolutely is. And to those Vikings fans who vow to boycott the team over this, the vast majority of y'all are liars. But for those who indeed revoke their fandom/season tickets in response to this saga, you won't be missed.
--------------------------------------------
4 comments:
I think your outrage, as you say of the outrage of others, is misplaced. The objection, to me, is not the addition of "male cheerleaders," but the replacement of real women with these drag characters. I don't go to drag shows, and certainly don't want my kids seeing them, so why are they here? If they want to do male cheerleading stuff, fine, but don't have them doing the same moves and pretend they are women. They should not be in women's sports, which cheerleading is.
I'm not at all outraged. I just hit back at the premise that VIkings fans will tune out over this. Also, these dudes aren't pretending to be women nor are they dressed up as women.
I'm all for advocating that only biological females should participate in female sports/endeavors, but if the ladies themselves tolerate biological males in their spaces then they shouldn't cry over losing their spots to men.
A perfectly reasonable outlook, but I've seen the pictures, and it looks like the same outfits to me. Worse, though, is it looks like the same moves. This is NOT the college male cheerleader type performance, where they lift the girls and such, it's an attempt to say that these men are the same as women-- they're drag performers, and I don't need that. I don't care if your defensive lineman is gay. Just don't let him try to play in a red sequined cocktail dress and tell me that's OK. Men, gay or straight, should not be performing women's roles. Sure, the reaction seems overblown, but isn't the choice to strenuously object or to quietly acquiesce?
On a separate note, welcome back, Jerry. I'm afraid I got mixed up in a case of mistaken identity as I thought you were Mitch Berg's college friend who passed away. Obviously that's not the case.
Post a Comment