That's especially if you feel the need to pander to Blue MAGA for fiscal reasons.
And, Klip probably does. As I called him out, here, and here, no, he didn't defend Platner on the rape claims. So, I'm not attacking him on that, though the belief that he was still defending Platner, by his boatload of smug on how he retreated from Platner, and how he retreated ONLY on this, is why I've called him out and will continue to do so. It may be why some more discriminating BlueAnon have stopped paid subscriptions.
Not only did he spin on Platner's Totenkopf? Worse, he spun on a guy going to Hotchkiss as an "everyman" and has never apologized. He doubled down on Platner's lack of vetting and behind shoved in Maine Democrats' face by a consultant with a problematic history. He stood by the whole idea that "owning the New Democrats" was the key.
Ken, even if some others are misinterpreting you, per the two links above, I am NOT. And, whether misinterpreted or correctly so (I linked to Mike Elk, with Pennsylvania knowledge about the consultant), you have not apologized for what you did get wrong, nor the apparent smug of "owning the New Democrats" even when it blew up on you. And, this IS when your donations fell off a cliff.
So, how to pander, and get readers back?
A quasi-clickbait headline, "Trump's Finger Gets Closer to Nuclear Button." I deconstructed that over on Substack in this piece.
Bottom line?
As Ken said himself of Elbridge Colby, his own piece looked to try to hit the Goldilocks middle ground. Not too much pandering, not too little. Not too much clickbait. Not too little.
Just right.
No rules, either!
We'll see if Ken actually can sit tight. I've set this version to go up eight days later than the Substack one. Also, to avoid responses, his name isn't in the title of the Substack version.
Answer is, at least the pre-election answer, that Ken canNOT "sit tight."
I wound up writing not one but two, or actually three if we count his pandering about Trump and Nidal Hasan's execution, pieces at Substack, a full week before this went up here on Blogger.
I then added a restack/note to No. 3, after Ken posted yet another piece about Hasan's execution. I quote it:
Klippenstein thinks he needs to write a whole post about how Hegseth is sending a raspberry to uniformed military by having Hasan executed by firing squad, while ignoring the angle that Pete thinks soldiers firing gunz is more manly than dropping a trap door for hanging, and that post-Christa Pike, he's probably worried about the Army fucking up a lethal injection.
Ken also forgets that the original plan WAS for live-streaming, and soldiers shooting gunz looks much more cool than dropping a trap door or inserting a needle.
I guess Ken's fixated on this right now, and yes, I'm semi-fixated on wondering why. Actually, I’m not, other than the small bit of me wondering if there’s any angle beyond being a Pander Bear.
Gack, Ken. This isn't even good critical thinking.
And, a day later, Ken writes about oil company profiteering over the Iran war. The "crack spread" between the price of crude and its various refined products is not new. Evan Rowe wrote about the crack spread and a whole bunch of related issues on Substack two-plus month ago.
And, as I said in restacking Ken:
Also, don’t forget that a certain percentage of Democrats, even if small, still halfway back the war against Iran, and an even bigger portion back the genocidal country on whose behalf Trump attacked Iran. And, I’m sure many of these people get campaign contributions from the likes of eXXXon too.)
There you are.
Maybe your subscribers will return. Maybe they won’t. Even after the midterms, if Dems do take control of both sides of Congress, you may still have to eat at least a small plate of apologetic crow for a lot of them to come back.
You made your bed by being a stubborn stack of shit over Graham Platner, Ken. Deal with it.
And, you may continue to lose unpaid subscribers as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment