Why Charlie Sykes is wrong about Rep. Bill Kramer

If you haven’t heard, Charlie Sykes has taken his Bill-Kramer-is-wrong-for-Wisconsin vendetta to Kill Bill! (The Sykes Remake.) I’d call it amusing, because it’s always freaking amusing when a pompous blowhard like Sykes pretends he’s better than the rest of us, but this time it’s rather nauseating because 1) Sykes is really digging in for some reason, and 2) Sykes isn’t exactly the poster boy for well-behaved Republican men. I mean, at least it isn’t Robin Vos prancing around with a dagger.

Oh, wait. I guess Vos’s in on it, too.

God bless America. Kramer is guilty because Vos and Sykes say so. Vos and Sykes never put a respective hand on a woman to which they weren’t married.

No, I will not shut up.

Republicans, especially you men, grow some balls. Beef up to the point where you will actually stand for something. And if your leadership, or pseudo-talk-radio-blowhard leadership, takes off on a mission to damn a man before trial, kindly step in and tell these two to stuff it.

Kramer’s a jerk. That’s long established. But he’s disappeared; he’s not running again. He’s planning a trial defense. He is not, at this point, guilty for being anything more than a jerk. There’s no reason to incur the expense of filling his spot early just so Sykes can put a notch in his well-weathered bedpost. I mean, you’d almost think Tea Party sensation Vicki McKenna is beating Sykes in his own market or something as much attention as he’s seeking.

Here’s a popular phrase these days: Let It Go.

Pat Kramer on the back for bowing out gracefully. Wish him well in his future endeavors, and start finding new leadership to replace Vos for the next session.

(No, I will not shut up.)

Now, for your reading enjoyment, take a look at what made its way to my inbox today. I’m not the only one unimpressed with Sykes. If you’d like, we can amend this later to include links proving all those ten points.

===

10 Key indicators that you are NOT Tea Party:

1) You grew up in Fox Point.

2) You majored in English Literature.

3) Your children attended both Harvard and the University of Georgetown.

4) Your daughter is a writer who lives on the southern coast of France.

5) Your second ex-wife is in line to become a Supreme Court justice.

6) You failed to pay child support.

7) You’ve written one or two books on people that mooch off of others.

8) You drive in from the suburbs in a Mercedes Benz to do a radio show.

9) Your sons play tennis because you didn’t have time to teach them horse polo.

10) You shunned the very Tea Party members you are now stepping on to make yourself look Tea Party.

If you answered yes to any of these questions you are probably not part of the Tea Party.

If you answered yes to all (10) of these questions you may suffer from a rare establishment disease known to affect people like Charlie Sykes.

Comments

  1. jimspice says:

    I answered yes to zero and am most definitely NOT a T-Partier.

  2. The problem the Republican party has in reaching a wider audience is the “holier-than-thou” attitude they have with many things.

    Take our good buddy Charlie Sykes for example. Charlie likes to hammer MPS for all its failings and tell us how awesome schools like Messmer are. The trouble is, when he had a chance to send his own children to Messmer, Charlie opted to send his kids to Marquette High. So while MPS has its issues, most people understand that the people who are hammering it are simply grandstanding.

    Then we do hear about topics like broken families and such and you have to take it with a grain of salt because Charlie is on wife #3. He broke up two families. Then that problem is compounded because the conserva-babes he likes to prop up on his show (McBride and Litjens) have a hard time sticking to one guy.

  3. You forgot about Charlie’s own infidelity issues and brushes with the law as a result of improper relations with women

  4. Alex Kilibrand says:

    “Vos and Sykes never put a respective hand on a woman to which they weren’t married.”

    Are you suggesting what I think you’re suggesting?

    Please, share with us the lurid details. 😉

  5. If one aspires to make arguments on the issues of the day, especially conservative ones, it is helpful to adhere to the rules of English grammar:

    …a woman to WHOM they weren’t married

    …one or two books on people WHO mooch off of others.

    That said, I share your contempt for Robin Vos. His finest moment came on the receiving end of a drink tossed at a Madison cocktail lounge.

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    Neil illustrates another example of how elitest Democrats feel rules and laws need not apply to
    themselves as others.

  7. Alex Kilibrand says:

    Is Neil an elitist Democrat or an elitist Republican?

    Judging by the shared contempt he and Cindy have for Vos, I’d say that puts him squarely in her camp.

  8. Randy in Richmond says:

    Good point Alex. I assumed Neil to be a Democrat. If not then he is not elitest but perhaps an English teacher or a very cautious Republican.

  9. Oh, Neil, you’ve discovered one of my several grammatical weak spots. Only the first one, though. The second was simply reprinting what had been mailed to me.

    I do work on it, but I miss sometimes.

  10. Alex Kilibrand says:

    I don’t know, Randy, according to the good folks at wikipedia:

    “Elitism endorses the exclusion of large numbers of people from positions of privilege or power. Thus, many populists seek the social equality of egalitarianism, populism, socialism, or communism. They may also support affirmative action, social security, luxury taxes, and highly progressive taxes for the wealthiest members of society. All of these measures seek to reduce the difference of power between the elite and the ordinary.”

    Sheldon Adelson certainly fits the description of an elitist, as do the the Koch Brothers, and many other very wealthy contributors to Republican candidates for office.

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    You’re trying to make a controversy where none exists. If Neil is a Republican and chooses to make light of another Republican, elitism need not apply. A Democrat commenting on a Republican or vice versa is different. You are confusing economic wealth with snobbish pride and educational superiority in your examples, but involking the Koch brothers, (number 59 in order of political donors), defines your leanings.

    Anyone wanting to know, Act Blue is number one.

  12. Alex Kilibrand says:

    Randy, I have to be honest with you, no matter how many times I reread your comment, it just doesn’t make any sense to me.

    As far as I can tell, Neil’s comment in no way illustrates that he feels rules and laws need not apply to himself and others.

    What on earth are you talking about?

  13. J. Strupp says:

    Uh. point of order:

    That list of donors (to their own admission) only includes direct donations and not donations to SuperPAC’s and dark money.

    If you include these other donations, the Koch’s put almost a half a billion dollars into the game before the last elections outspending all unions combined. I’m sure Adelson was in the same ballpark.

    The system sucks and that goes for both sides but let’s at least be honest about it.

  14. Randy in Richmond says:

    I agree the system as is sucks. But apparently this does not stop the constant whining about the Koch Brothers and the unions legal donations. Strupp, how about a link to your source that the Koch brothers outspent “all unions combined” during the period referred to.

    And the 59th designation for the Koch Brothers is correct for donations to candidates between 1989 and 2014 just as the unions higher donations to candidates are correct during the same period. I’ll discuss PACS once I’ve received your link.

  15. J. Strupp says:
  16. Randy in Richmond says:

    Strupp
    That’s an interesting article by Lee Fang (who believes buying anything low and selling it higher is a crime). Even he points out that it is fully disclosed with the ‘Open Secrets’ list of donors that PAC giving is not included. He also points out that the Kochs’ and Sheldon Adelsons’ donations to PACS are not included, but fails to mention donations by Bloomberg, Soros, and others are not included either.

    But what I like most is that if you click on Fang’s source links provided for his chart, you end up –at his chart.

    For the most part, under current regulations, what the unions, the Kochs, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson and others give must be legal or the other side(s) would pounce. Comparisons and criticisms can be made to defend or attack either depending on one’s starting point. Bottom line – if they’re supporting your guy/gal or philosphy, it’s okay. If they support the other guy/gal or philosopy, it’s not okay.

  17. J. Strupp says:

    You sourced the Washington Examiner opinion page who sourced opensecrets.org. Come on.

    If they opened the books on these boys I’m confident my dollar amount will be closer than yours.

    As I said, the system is a joke. It’s rigged to make billionaires bigger billionaires no matter what side of the aisle they’re on. That’s the real issue we should be talking about as a nation.

  18. Wilson828 says:

    Charlie Sykes is pure loud mouth vomit. No one with an education beyond 8th grade takes him seriously. On rare occasion his name is mentioned at dinner parties or at gatherings with other people and there is virtually no one that listens to his barf.