At least Newsweek is honest

January 16, 2012

This really is what the intelligentsia in the MSM, academia, and the leadership of the Democratic Party think of most of the nation:

I don’t know about you, but I prefer this honest contempt to the patronizing variety we usually get.

For those not familiar with Andrew Sullivan, he had been blogger for The Atlantic, until he went off the deep end with wild conspiracy theories about THE TRUTH behind the birth of Trig Palin. Now he writes, supposedly as a conservative, for (what’s left of) Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

But we’re the dumb ones.

via Newsbusters

UPDATE: Joel Pollak asks, “Why is Andrew Sullivan so dumb?”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

“What a Brownback!”

November 29, 2011

There’s an old saying about public figures attacking newspapers who say things they don’t like: “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

Well, it seems we need to update that for the 21st century: “Never pick a fight with a teenager who has a Twitter account.”

It’s a lesson Governor Sam Brownback (R-KS) learned the hard way:

It’s not every day someone turns your name into a noun. But welcome to the big leagues, Kansas Gov. (and former Sen.) Sam Brownback, and all because you trained the state’s resources on an 18-year-old senior at Shawnee Mission East High School who tweeted something mean about you.

Recall the ancient history of last week, when Emma Sullivan boasted on Twitter that she said a “mean comment” to the governor during a Youth in Government event in Topeka where Brownback was speaking. She ended the tweet with the hashtag “heblowsalot.” Team Brownback declared war on the teen and told on her to Shawnee Mission East High School principal Karl Krawitz. Krawitz called Sullivan into the office and demanded she apologize. She refused. Brownback apologized Monday.

Now Brownback faces the wrath of the Twitterverse, including this tweet from @MildlyRelevant: “Gov. Brownback’s office tattled on a high school girl who tweeted ‘#heblowsalot.’ I’m tattling on them for being a colossal Brownback.” There you have it: a proper noun.

Was Emma Sullivan a mouthy jerk? Sure. Just as I’m sure you’re all shocked someone in high school would do something like that. In fact, that a teenager would say something stupid and immature when showing off for friends (and followers) is so unusual and outrageous that it left a state governor and former US senator no choice but to crush her like an insolent bug:

Mr Brownback’s office contacted the school and complained about the tweet.

The following day Emma wound up in the principal’s office, NBC Action News reports.

She said: ‘He laid into me about how this was unacceptable and an embarrassment.

‘He said I had created this huge controversy and everyone was up in arms about it … and now he had to do damage control.’

She said she was told to write a formal apology to the governor, which so far she hasn’t done.

Emma said: ‘I don’t agree with a majority of the things that he is trying to pass.

‘I believe that it is my right to state my opinion.’

The school’s principal said: ‘This is not about political views since none were given in the tweet – it’s about being respectful with a public official whether we agree or disagree with their viewpoints.’

Yeah, right. I imagine what this was really about was the phone call the principal got from Topeka and vague hints of future “career advancement difficulties” if he didn’t force Miss Sullivan to GROVEL BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY GOVERNOR!!

I doubt the principal was all that concerned about the principle.

Not that I’m defending Sullivan’s behavior; she was a smart-alecky, immature jerk of a not-uncommon variety, and maybe her parents should have had a word with her about “respectful disagreement.” But she’s a jerk who also happens to have a right to free political speech, even if said speech is expressed in a manner more befitting an 8-year old, not an 18-year old legal adult with the right to vote.

But if Emma Sullivan was a jerk, then Governor Sam Brownback was a jackass who tried to punish someone for exercising their right to free speech (a right he swore to protect as senator and which is guaranteed under the Kansas constitution) and in the process punched so far under his class that, like President Obama attacking a radio host, he made himself look like a fool.

Or, to use the new buzzword, a “Brownback.”

The real lesson here, I think, is the illustration of the arrogance career politicians of all parties are prone to, where they think they’re protected by some form of law against lese majeste. Far from it; if you’re a politician in a democracy, you have to live with the reality that some people are going to say mean things about you.

And if Governor Brownback can’t handle that and keeps acting like a Brownback, then perhaps the voters of Kansas should give him a lesson in democratic humility at the next election.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


White House tells Supreme Court what cases it should take?

March 15, 2011

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised; this is, after all, the same administration whose leader famously dressed down the Court live on national television during his State of the Union speech. No wonder his flunkies feel free to tell the court what cases it may take and when:

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Monday night it should stay away from a high-profile challenge to the 2010 health care law until after a lower court has had a chance to review the case.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote, “there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review.” Katyal also says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s case is problematic because he may lack sufficient standing to challenge the health care law.

The Supreme Court normally takes cases only after they’ve been reviewed at least once by appellate judges. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that’s not appropriate in this instance.

In his filing last month, Cuccinelli said there’s a “palpable consensus” that the high court will ultimately have to pass judgment on the merits of President Obama’s health care law and should do so without delay. Furthermore, Cuccinelli argues that his case involves “pure issues of constitutional law” that appellate judges on the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will be unable to definitively resolve.

Maybe I’m just a stuffy old conservative, but it seems to me that the Court itself is competent to decide what cases it will take in which order, and when procedure will be followed and when it will be deviated from. Last I checked, it is a co-equal branch of the government and doesn’t need advice from another branch about how to handle its own affairs.

The subtext of this seems to me to be that Katyal and his bosses are worried that the initiative is against them since Judge Vinson’s devastating ruling against ObamaCare last April, even though that’s separate from Virginia’s case. Judge Vinson’s reasoning will surely be used in any number of amicus briefs filed when (not if) Virginia’s case goes to the SCOTUS, so perhaps the administration is hoping appellate review of Cuccinelli’s suit will give them some ammunition for later. Or maybe they’re playing a delaying game, hoping that, the longer ObamaCare is in force, the less likely the courts will be to overturn it.

To be honest, I’m not sure why they need to act arrogantly toward the court in this instance; it’s not as if they’ve shown any inclination to obey court orders so far.

via Doug Powers

UPDATE: I’ve been told by several lawyers on Twitter that this is a fairly standard filing, so, objection withdrawn. But the snark about obeying court orders stands.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The arrogance of King Harry Reid

January 7, 2011

I wrote yesterday in my post about Steny Hoyer that the Democrats’ attitude toward those who oppose them is a form of oligarchical arrogance. Today, Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the inaptly named Democratic Party, provided another example: when asked about the coming House vote to repeal ObamaCare, he stamped his foot, said it would never come to a vote in the Senate, and told the Republicans to get a life:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made clear Thursday that as long as he’s in charge, no effort to repeal the health care law will see the light of day beyond the House, but Senate Democrats said they are open to changing parts of the law over the next year.

“The Republicans have to understand that the health care bill is not going to be repealed,” Reid said. “Are we saying the health care bill is perfect? Of course not. We’re willing to work in any way that’s constructive in nature to improve the health care delivery system in our country, but repealing health care, they should get a new lease on life and talk about something else.”

This, of course, is a continuation of the public war of words between the Senate Democratic leadership and the House Republicans, lead by newly-minted Speaker Boehner. But, did I say “arrogance?” Maybe “childish petulance” is more in order. Little Lord Harry isn’t just saying he will oppose the bill in debate and do all he can to defeat it in a manner befitting the world’s greatest democracy. Nope. He instead threw a tantrum and announced beforehand that he will not even allow it to be considered. Forget it. Don’t even try.

What’s next? Holding his hands to his ears and screaming I’M NOT LISTENING!! whenever someone brings it up?

In effect, Reid not only flipped a finger toward the House, but he (and his subordinates in the leadership) have told the American voters to take a hike; what they want does not matter. For over a year, and culminating in the Great Shellacking of 2010, the majority of American voters made one thing clear: they hate ObamaCare and they want it repealed. That is a very big part of why the Democrats lost control of the House, much of their majority in the Senate, over 600 state legislative seats, and a whole slough of governorships.

While I do believe there are times a leader must say “you’re wrong” to his constituents (such as a majority’s desire to deny the rights of the minority), this isn’t one of them. We’re talking about policy here, not unalienable rights derived from Natural Law, and a clear majority of Americans hate this policy with a passion and want Congress to repeal it — at the very least, bring it up for public debate.

But King Harry of Searchlight and his courtiers have said “no.”

You thought we were an angry, smelly mob before, Harry; you ain’t seen nothing, yet.

LINKS: I like this idea a lot.

PS: Dear Nevada, I realize Sharron Angle was a bit of an odd duck, but you honestly preferred Harry Reid? Really? Seriously??

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Steny Hoyer, family psychologist

January 6, 2011

I’m getting so confused. You see, I thought I and others like me opposed ObamaCare and other liberal-fascist Democratic programs because we believe strongly in limited government that operates within the bounds of the Constitution and that those same programs were actually harmful to the nation. In other words, we were acting in good faith and on principle.

Silly me.

Since the (Social) Democratic Party was given free reign with the election of President Obama, we’ve been variously told that we’re Nazi sympathizers, racists, and an angry mob that makes a fetish of the Constitution.

Now we know the root causes of our irrational rage. It’s not our fault — we’re victims!

According to Steny Hoyer (D-MD), former House Majority Leader and apparently a specialist in Family Psychology, our opposition to all the wonderful things the Democrats have done for us is rooted in our dysfunctional families:

There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.

Representative Hoyer said that two days ago. Contrast his arrogance with the humility shown by John Boehner as he was sworn in yesterday as Speaker. Isn’t it usually the loser who’s humble and the winner who crows?

Hoyer’s “diagnosis” is yet another example of the stunning arrogance and patronizing contempt for their fellow citizens that permeates the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is to say the majority of what’s left of their caucus on the Hill. It is the attitude of an arrogant oligarchy that cannot come to terms with having some of their power taken away and facing the prospect of losing the rest of it in two years. They’re like an employee fired for incompetence who refuses to own up to the truth and instead whines that his boss was out to get him.

Steny, I think you’re the one who needs the psychologist. Not us.

RELATED: I wonder if Hoyer has read Max Blumenthal’s book? They sure think along the same lines…

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pennsylvania Governor: “We lost because people don’t vote logically.”

November 23, 2010

No, really. That’s what he said. It couldn’t be because the majority rejected mistaken policies they didn’t want, policies that are failing miserably. Yeesh.

Patronizing, arrogant, condescending. Maybe Andrew Klavan wasn’t just being funny.

Then again, perhaps the election of an obviously far-Left* senator to the presidency proves Ed Rendell is right.

*(It would have been obvious if the media had bothered to do their homework, that is.)


And speaking of “elitism,” guess what the President said?

October 17, 2010

President Obama captured the elitist mindset perfectly with this one statement:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Sigh. This is one his most self-revealing statements since the “bitter clingers” moment in the Democratic primaries in 2008. In Obamaland, it isn’t possible to oppose his policies because one has come to a reasoned conclusion that they’re wrongheaded, bad for the country, and just plain won’t work. It can’t be because one has a different vision for the role of government, its relation to the people, and the best way to bring prosperity to as many as possible. It can’t be because you believe (correctly) that the Constitution is a document that limits government and gives it specific powers because unrestrained government is a threat to both liberty and prosperity.

Nope, it’s because you’re irrational and scared.

If I’m scared, Mr. President, it’s because of a very rational rejection of the poor policy choices you’ve made both domestically and in foreign affairs, and a revulsion at the direction you want to take this nation. It is based very much on “facts and science and arguments,” unlike your “stimulus” program that was nothing but a pork-fest, or your climate-change agenda that’s based on junk-science. It’s because of a feckless national security policy that has only served to make the world a more dangerous place by making us weak and pusillanimous, encouraging our rivals and enemies.

I may have disagreed with George W. Bush on many things, but at least –at the minimum– I knew he didn’t hold the  people he lead in a patronizing contempt.

I’m not a religious person, but God save me from my self-anointed betters.

PS. Bill Whittle is right.

UPDATE: Byron York has a very good column on this today.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)