by Smitty (h/t Alan Colmes)
Seinfeld was great in the SNL cameo. The topic, thrashing Massa, was not itself terribly novel, but the delivery was smooth:
Which gives me an idea to push to PJTV . . .
‘Does All of This Activism Matter?’
When I saw this linked by Dan Riehl, I was frankly stunned that an impressive turnout for a rally in St. Paul inspired Powerline’s John Hinderaker to suggest citizens protesting against ObamaCare “won’t stop the Democrats from doing whatever they have to do to pass a government takeover bill.”
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Mr. Hinderaker: No coach ever went into the locker room at halftime and told his team they were doomed to defeat. No general preparing to lead troops into battle would begin by telling them their fight was futile.
“Rock, sometime when the team is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to go out there with all they’ve got and win just one for the Gipper.”
“Never take counsel of your fears,” as a great general once said, or to quote Vince Lombardi: “A quitter never wins and a winner never quits.”
Let me amend Lombardi’s famous maxim by saying that so long as there is any hope of victory, a winner never even considers the possibility of defeat — or, if the thought of defeat crosses his mind, he certainly never suggests it aloud.
What is true in athletics or warfare is doubly true in politics, where the “bandwagon” mentality often leads uncommitted voters to support whichever side they perceive as more likely to win.
Mr. Hinderaker: Why do you suppose that Democratic leaders are trying to create the impression of inevitability? Why are liberals trotting out misleading polls and RINO stooges in support of their legislative monstrosity? This is all a psychological game intended to dishearten their opponents and convince wavering members of Congress that they can safely vote “yes.”
If the Democrats believed their own victory was inevitable, they would not be doing these things. Their extraordinary efforts do not indicate confidence, but doubt. If Democrats are doubtful, shouldn’t this inspire us to greater confidence? Rather than pronouncing our own efforts likely to fail, shouldn’t we be even more encouraged that we are about to inflict upon our antagonists a defeat that they will never forget?
“I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”
— Ronald Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981
Mr. Hinderaker: Perhaps you didn’t mean to be defeatist when you asked, “Does all of this activism matter?” Perhaps you have overlooked the evidence that “all of this activism” matters very, very much.
When I was in Boston to cover Scott Brown’s Senate campaign, I interviewed Randy May, who drove 1,600 miles to volunteer for the Brown campaign:
“I woke up about six months ago and realized that I had let my country down by letting these things happen.”
— Randy May, Jan. 17, 2010
When a man who has fought for freedom feels compelled to become involved in such a remarkable way, which of us should discourage him by speculating whether “all of this activism” matters?
My computer bag still contains a few scraps of confetti from the Park Plaza ballroom in Boston where we celebrated the victory of “Downtown Scotty Brown,” whose miracle in Massachusetts elected the Senate’s “41st vote” against ObamaCare. It is because of that improbable victory — “The Scott Heard ‘Round the World” — that Pelosi and the Democrats have been forced into the desperate last-ditch maneuvering of the “Slaughter Solution.”
Mr. Hinderaker: ObamaCare is losing. We are winning.
“Does all of this activism matter?” The answer is not just “yes,” but “Hell, yes!”
And I encourage everyone who can make it to Washington to meet me at 9 a.m. Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
The People’s Surge against Obamacare 2.0
Please join us in DC to lobby our congressmen to VOTE NO on Obamacare 2.0. Join us Tuesday, March 16th, beginning at 9:00am outside the Cannon House Office Building (Independence Ave. SE and New Jersey SE). We will be storming the three House Office Buildings: Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn. Our message is simple: VOTE NO on Obamacare 2.0.
UPDATE: Et tu, Jules Crittenden?
It’s a poorly cobbled together collection of ill-conceived ideas foisted at the worst possible time, primarily because for once, the Dems have found a leader who won’t govern by poll, refuses to believe the polls and won’t surrender, thanks in part to advisors who assure him the polls are wrong.
But that’s not the question at all! No one supposes that Barack Obama or his aides give a damn at this point. No one is trying to persuade them of anything. It’s the Democrats in Congress who are the objects of this activism. Obama is leading them and the entire country over the cliff, and the hope is that their minimal concern for political self-interest — if not some tiny flickering spark of patriotism — will inspire them to end this lemming march into the abyss.
UPDATE II: Say what you will about her, Sarah Palin fights:
This is the final push. We must stand up and stand together one last time to insist on true market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform that reflects America’s values and the will of the people.
Everyone Should Follow Dan Riehl On Twitter
by Smitty
Dan references Alan’s post here.
In reference to Dan’s Tweet, maybe he needs a James Taylor moment . . .
Hilarious Fiorina ‘Demon Sheep’ Follow Up
by Smitty (h/t Huffington Post)
I don’t know how much money/chemicals went into this:
Titled, “Hot Air,” the ad’s messaging and imagery is hardly subtle. There is the Hitchcock-inspired shot of the Capitol building with menacing birds swarming around it; the images of Boxer as a young pol, enjoying the “warm bask of attention”; the California Democrat’s head expanding to ungodly proportions, bursting the Capitol dome into pieces; and then a talking Boxer blimp casting a shadow over her home state until it’s punctured by a needle and falls like a bomb into the Pacific. There is even a gratuitous scene of fingernails scratching against a chalkboard — which Davis likely included because actually calling Boxer shrill on camera would have be too outrageous and controversial.
It seemed to recall Boorman more than Hitchcock, but YMMV:
Update: Big Government has more.
Ray Stevens May Be A Sarah Palin Supporter
by Smitty
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Charles Krauthammer isn’t a huge Ray Stevens fan:
‘No Serious Leader Since Has Called For Its Repeal’
by Smitty
Charles Krauthammer offers a stream of wonderful insights. Hopefully, news of this post can reach up into his study and tease a bit of follow-up from him on a point in his recent Real Clear Politics piece:
The rotation of power is the finest political instrument ever invented for the consolidation of what were once radical and deeply divisive policies. The classic example is the New Deal. Republicans railed against it for 20 years. Then Dwight Eisenhower came to power, wisely left it intact, and no serious leader since has called for its repeal.
Sure, the New Deal has the weight of decades behind it. Also, an unsustainable funding profile. Furthermore, to throw out a counterfactual, I daresay that, had the Internet existed at the time, FDR would be having as much success passing the New Deal as BHO is with ObamaCare. Maybe FDR would have better success, as the abject foolishness of Federal entitlements took a parade of decades and buffoons to get rolling.
So, my questions for CK are:
- What, if any, meaning do you ascribe to the 10th Amendment?
- Why do you think allowing something to exist with such arguably deleterious effects is “wise”?
- Why do you think driving the American political dialogue back in the direction of the genius of Federalism is an “unserious” act?
- Do you think running chronic and worsening deficits, and unpayable national debt is ethical, moral and sustainable? How much wife beating is “enough”?
For the record, I submit that FDR’s free-basing of the Constitution in his 1944 SOU speech was monstrous. It was the political equivalent of the snake in the Garden saying “Hath God said . . . ?” Legislation like the Federal Reserve Act, the Nude Eel, the Great Society, etc. can always claim tactical victory.
Yet now, decades later, they seem a cure worse than the disease from a strategic vantage. They have altered the fabric of the country. They have arguably brought tactical improvement, but, strategically, seem icing on a turd, at least in retrospect.
So, apparently because of the weight of tradition, realistic of assessment of societal maturity, or the ridiculous political effort required to do anything besides play along, CK deems leaders who’d threaten the status quo “unserious”.
It remains to be seen if, like a junkie kicking the needle, America can muster the fortitude to alter course.
While I don’t think outright repeal seriously possible, I do think it reasonable to call the Progressive bluff, and poke them with the 1oth Amendment at every turn. Because Progressivism, like a mold, worked its way around the very protections meant to precludes its foolishness.
And serious leaders who can articulate a means to escape the pit of debt and entitlement bondage need to be identified and supported. CK reminds me of George Will. Possibly anything resembling vigor is simply too much to ask of the gentlemen.
Update: Mommy took umbrage at this post. I’ve gone back and bolded a point at the end, and want to re-iterate that TANSTAAFL, and that it will take something more than a serious leader, a full-on genius of a statesman (or -woman) to drain this Progressive swamp. The 10th Amendment was a front-end interlock meant to preclude things like the current Federal over-reach and debt. It is far too simple a statement to do more than inform reform.
Pelosi and Proctology
They do have something in common, as Jeff Goldstein observes:
Oh, there’s some ramming going on all right.
Bend over, America. And cough.
Trust us. It’s for your own good…
Any resemblance between your sphincter and Nancy Pelosi’s face is purely coincidental.
The N.Y.C. Taxi-Driver Jihad
If you can’t crash jetliners into their skyscrapers, at least scam the infidel dogs out of some extra cab fare:
About 3,000 New York City taxi drivers routinely overcharged riders over two years by surreptitiously fixing their meters to charge rates that would normally apply only to trips outside the five boroughs, according to the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission.
The drivers’ scheme, the commission said, involved 1.8 million rides and cost passengers an average of $4 to $5 extra per trip . . . costing New York City riders a total of $8.3 million. . . .
The commission said it began an inquiry after investigators, responding to a rider’s complaint, determined that a cab driver from Brooklyn, Wasim Khalid Cheema, had overcharged 574 passengers in just one month last year. Mr. Cheema’s license has been revoked. He could not be reached for comment. . . .
Probably because Wasim is now somewhere in a cave in Waziristan, teaching taxi-meter terrorism tactics to other al-Qaeda cabbies, who are no doubt dreaming of becoming Jamie Paulin-Ramirez’s next husband.