Joe Walsh Child Support Story – Days 3 and 4

The Saturday Chicago Tribune editorial. Click to enlarge.

Newspaper coverage of Congressman Joe Walsh’s child support payment problems diminished over the weekend.

I could find only two mentions in Chicago’s daily newspapers.

Walsh was ridiculed in the Chicago Tribune on Saturday.  That’s probably the edition that is least read during the week.

The Tribune, of course, did not endorse Walsh and, at best, is Establishment Republican.

Thinking back on the endorsements I received in 16 state rep. elections, I can’t remember one I got when it could have made any difference.

Here’s a taste from the editorial, a suggestion for “an excellent slogan” for Walsh’s next election:

Joe Walsh: He hates spending his own money, and he hates spending yours.

A Sunday Chicago Sun-Times editorial page contribution also talks about the 2012 election.

Carol Marin's Sunday, July 31, 2011, column about Joe Walsh's political problems.

Carol Marin, never a friend to conservatives, nevertheless seems to want to provide some “you know what, Walsh might win in 2012, even though he’s been trashed in the media” text she can point to just in case Walsh pulls off what will now be considered another stunning upset upset.

She reprints the front page of Thursday’s Sun-Times (just in case any Sunday readers missed it on Thursday, I guess).

Then she points to the first two words in the headline: “TEA PARTY.”

And, she starts her column,

Don’t underestimate Joe Walsh.

Considering the way all but the We Ask America polling firm dismissed Walsh’s possibility of beating Melissa Bean, a Marin favorite, I’d say the senior female opinion-maker in the Chicago area is hedging her bet this time.

Huffington Post reported Saturday that MSNBC’s Laurence O’Donnell has banned Walsh from his program until he pays his back child support.

MSNBC's Laurence O'Donnell announces he won't have Joe Walsh on his program again until he pays the child support he owes. O'Donnell starts by showing the shoot-out between Chris Matthews and Walsh. O'Donnell says Walsh makes no sense. Judge for yourself below.

Northwest Herald Executive Editor Chris Krug thinks pretty much everyone has watched the video above in which Joe Walsh goes toe-to-toe with Chris Matthews.

Krug also weighed in his Sunday.  column.  In view of his being part of the decision-making group that decided to endorse Melissa Bean last year, I find this comment of particular interest:

So what I am now thinking is that, regardless of what he has done, does, says or might say, there may be room in Washington for Walsh for years to come.”

Are Krug and Marin laying the groundwork to explain a Walsh 2012 victory, however unlikely they think that possibility is?


Comments

Joe Walsh Child Support Story – Days 3 and 4 — 4 Comments

  1. Does Joe Walsh owe back child support, or does he not? THAT is the question. If the story is true, then he is a morally bankrupt hypocrite.

    Does he owe the child support? Is he a deadbeat dad who cares about his own career (and doesn’t really believe all that he spouts)? Or is the story false?

    Why does this blog only focus on the media coverage itself, rather than what a disgusting disgrace this is? Joe Walsh hasn’t denied that he is a deadbeat dad, has he?

    Cal, do you condemn deadbeat dads who owe thousands and thousands of dollars to their CHILDREN? or are you ok with that?

  2. Ha, if Melissa Bean had owed child support, Cal would’ve been ALL OVER IT.

    However, Cal is a partisan hack which is defined as
    //Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true.”

    You may be a partisan hack if:
    – the other side is to blame totally for all that is wrong in the country.
    – you think its o.k. for judges to legislate from the bench as long as it coincides with your position.
    – you won’t admit the opposing party probably has as many good and as many bad ideas as your own favorite party.//

    Cal definitely fits this description. If it were a dem, he’d be all over them, but since it’s someone he likes, he helps defend their poor moral actions. It’s kinda like saying poor moral actions are okay in the pursuit of the political goals you want.

    And that’s what’s wrong with our country boys and girls, we divide things into red vs. blue and cheer for our side regardless of facts or morality. We can’t actually work on real solutions without making it into a false dichotomy. And it’s because of this that end up supporting people simply bear our favorite symbol despite they’re unfit or corrupt.

    So thanks cal, keep on blogging the status quo of partisan hackery.

  3. The poster above was a first timer. The program I use requires that I approve new posters, so I tried to email him at the address he used, but it had a “permanent failure.”

  4. Yes this is true Cal, because you have a habit of posting people’s private business online – and not just politicians, but regular people.

    For instance, when you posted pictures of a young woman you didn’t know driving in her car http://patrickmurfin.livejournal.com/16248.html and defamed her for her bumper stickers? That’s kinda creepy to be diving into other personal citizen’s business and posting it online, and I’d really rather not deal with you snooping into mine or my family’s, so yes, I use a fake address.

    If you have a defense of yourself, we can discuss it in public here so that we can all see it.

    However, I commend you for letting me criticize you openly on your own blog. That’s more openness than most politicians are willing to give.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *