The fact that I'm wondering if the things said to be "a real program" are perhaps not actually real — that says enough.

I found this because it's easy to find things tweeted by Elon Musk in the last 24 hours:

pic.twitter.com/VyFYXCDG9p

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2025

I am reminded of the old "Golden Fleece Award":

The Golden Fleece Award (1975–1988) was a tongue-in-cheek award given to public officials in the United States for squandering public money....

One man controlled this award: Senator William Proxmire. His idea of what sounded stupid ruled. You had to be careful about how your research project looked, at first glance, to a politician who wanted to make a general point about out-of-control federal spending.

"Tom Nelson, a longtime union advocate, is running for the Democratic nomination for Wisconsin’s Senate seat as a genuine populist, not the phony kind with a Harvard degree who affects an accent."

Writes Jennifer Rubin in "Wisconsin’s Tom Nelson reminds Democrats how populists should sound" (WaPo). 

Who's she talking about — "the phony kind with a Harvard degree who affects an accent"? Russ Feingold??! (He went to Harvard, but he's really from Wisconsin, not faking an accent.)

I've been living in Wisconsin since 1984, and I don't know which politicians have affected the accent. But maybe Rubin isn't talking about Wisconsin. She's acting like she's talking about Wisconsin though, so — speaking of phony — I'm expecting her to talk about Wisconsin.

Who, exactly, is being impugned? Someone is terribly fake, apparently, but who? We're not told who this fake-accent Harvard person might be, but we are told the name of someone Nelson views as a role model: William Proxmire, who "popularized the Golden Fleece award to highlight wasteful government spending."

From the comments over there:

Why did Hillary Clinton spend $30 million on an election she won by more than 30 percentage points?

Front-page analysis by the NYT. Having spent so much money on extras -- $13,000 for flowers, $27,000 for valet parking, $930,000 on a campaign strategist -- she no longer has a financial advantage over the other presidential hopefuls. Why did she do it? According to the article, it's not clear whether it was a lack of discipline or whether it has cleverly laid the groundwork for future fundraising. But it doesn't make a pretty picture. And why would an ordinary person part with $100 or so if this is the way they think the money will be spent? And doesn't reckless spending say something about how the candidate will govern? Let me remind you of an old Wisconsin Senator: William Proxmire:

His aversion to spending money extended to himself. Throughout his career, he wore inexpensive suits, paid for his own plane trips and spent less than $200 on his campaigns, with some of the money used to buy stamps to return donations sent by constituents. "I think fully two-thirds of the senators could get re-elected without spending a penny," he once said.

Wisconsin's Date With Destiny. That's how R.W. Apple in today's NYT refers to next week's primary. Isn't it all already over? Do ordinary people keep paying attention when the outcome is so obvious? It feels like the media are pushing the it's-a-two-man-race-now line to keep the story alive. Do the two Johns, Kerry and Edwards, have a strategy to work together in stages, preserving the two-man-race as long as the press is willing to perceive a two-man-race, and, when that loses all momentum, to reactivate the publicity by announcing that Edwards is Kerry's choice for VP? I imagine they have a plan to roll out this process in stages to get the maximum time in the spotlight. I'd believe otherwise if I saw either of the two of them attack the other. But, failing that, I'm seeing it as over. So here's Apple talking about Wisconsin (Wonkette takes note of this here):

The question awaiting an answer as the candidates began arriving in Wisconsin this week was this: Why should this state prove any different? "Our tradition of supporting mavericks," answered Linda Honold, the state party chairwoman. "We're kind of quirky. We like people who stand up for what they believe in despite adversity, which could lead a lot of people to support one of the three underdogs." In a kind of honor roll of mavericks, Ms. Honold mentioned ... [blah, blah] ... Proxmire... [blah, blah] ... Feingold .... "We haven't had the presidential candidates here for a long time," Ms. Honold said. "People may want to speak with a distinctive voice." But John McAdams, a professor of political science at Marquette University in Milwaukee, expressed skepticism about the idea that Wisconsin is unique. Professor McAdams said he had "a lot of trouble" with the idea that it would vote any differently than Iowa or New Hampshire. "Frankly, in my view, this state is a lot less distinctive than people would like to think it is or than it once was," he said.

There's a big difference between thinking you're special and being special. We do like to think at least Madison is special, though!