Entertaining reading; you can almost imagine the authors morosely chugging vodka while writing it. In no particular order, Teh Funnies: (more…)
I got tipped on this by RedState diarist BigGator5, who is as gobsmacked as I am that this happened to a (presumed) Chris Dudley (R CAND, OR-GOV) supporter. Short version for those who can’t see/haven’t seen the video: a guy was filming Democratic candidate John Kitzhaber at a political event held in a church. He was asked to turn off the camera: he refused, on First Amendment grounds. Now, let me establish, for the record: this is a shaky argument, at best, when it comes to private property – even when the site is hosting a public event. So, I can easily enough concede that a duly-authorized representative of the church, Kitzhaber campaign, and/or group hosting the event may have indeed had the right to demand that the man turn off his camera.
I do not concede that said representative had the right to smash the guy’s camera in his face.
Note the use of a second camera, which is useful for establishing that no violent activity on the cameraman’s sparked the assault and battery. That was pretty much an unprovoked attack, there: and I’d like to know whether or not the assailant was involved with the Kitzhaber campaign or not. I’d also like to know whether the Democrats quite understand that if you want to punch back twice as hard, you have to wait for your opponents to actually punch you in the first place…
Moe Lane (Crossposted)
From the Politico, on the massive Obamacare fiasco (via Hot Air Headlines):
Rarely have so many political strategists been so wrong about something so big.
No. Rarely have so many Democratic political strategists been so wrong about something so big. Republican and conservative political strategists were sounding the bell on the mistake that the Democrats were making… when we weren’t setting up the (rhetorical) machine gun emplacements and barbed wire, of course.
Seriously. We were disavowing Obamacare and talking about how bad this was going to be for the Democrats before the bill had even passed.
That’s a silly question, of course: they won’t return Craiglist’s Craig Newmark’s campaign contributions. Neither will the DCCC… and definitely neither will Senator Barbara Boxer (D, CA). You see, it all has to do with the way the money is used, not how it’s collected. So what if Craig Newmark made a ridiculous amount of money by offering ad space to people who sexually exploit minors? He gives some of that money to Democrats, and thus makes everything instantly better. It’s like the old medieval practice of indulgences; not so much in the theory, but definitely in the practice. And certainly the people who get the sex traffic money – like Boxer – don’t have to worry about where it came from. The important thing is that they get it, and use it to do good.
For a given value of ‘good,’ of course.
The Manchin administration in West Virginia has decided that the needs of its new, state-owned technology park outweigh the needs of miner safety.
Let’s walk through this: (more…)
Byron York (and this is why we like him):
Shortly before the Republicans rolled out their plan in Sterling, Virginia, I called the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I asked spokesman Ryan Rudominer whether, since we now have the GOP agenda, there is a similar document laying out what Democrats will do if voters return them to power in the House. There was a moment of silence on the other end of the call.
“I’m sorry, you mean, like, a current one?” Rudominer asked.
…and further commentary unnecessary. Except to note that forget an agenda: these winners don’t even have a budget.
(H/T Hot Air Headlines)
Executive summary: David Axelrod conference-called lefty bloggers to beg for their help in the November elections (because they’ve been ever so useful so far in the 2010 election cycle); and apparently the lefty bloggers are feeling quite aggrieved and put-upon for being called upon to do as they’re bid. One even went so far to as to categorize the entire interaction between the Democratic establishment and the netroots in furtive, sexually shameful terms (one hopes that this… no, that’s too vicious a comment to make); apparently, this is something that happens often enough that it has the name of ‘hippie punching.’
‘Hippie punching.’
You know, this is a new one for me: I don’t think that I’ve ever heard this particular turn of phrase before. From context, I assume it means “to smack around progressive activists, safe and secure in the knowledge that they lack the internal dignity, elementary sense of self-worth, and bare minimum of personal courage necessary to do anything about it.” If it doesn’t… well, it should. Because that’s what’s going on, here. The Democratic base is restless, so it gets the privilege of yelling at a soon-to-be-gone-anyway administration official a little as payment for all its good work in keeping establishment Democrats at the money troughs. And once they’ve gotten it out of their system, it’s back to rubbing the lotion in their skin, or they get the hose…
Moe Lane
PS: To push back on something Allahpundit wrote (said he, genially):
Have tea partiers had any calls like this yet with the GOP leadership? All in good time, all in good time.
We have already had calls like this, in point of fact: in no particular order, they were called the Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, South Carolina, Colorado, Delaware, Nevada, Utah, and Alaska primaries. And those are just the ones that immediately come to mind.
Shorter Moe Lane: we are not tame.
Crossposted to RedState.
We’ve talked with Isaac before (here and here); given the latest shenanigans that his opponent has gotten himself into, it seemed like a good idea for us to check in with him again.
Isaac’s site is here.
Moe Lane
I LIKE WHAT I LIKE AND THAT IS THAT.
Seriously, though, it was nice to get Bruce back after that weird time in the middle of the 90s.
You know, I’m going to have to agree with Stacy McCain, here. This 2003 statement by Christine O’Donnell, about Britney Spears?
“And you can tell that Britney Spears is struggling with who she is. I think she has a team of agents and managers who are saying, yes, push the envelope, kiss Madonna, take off all your clothes. And she’s doing that because she doesn’t want to sacrifice this enormous platform that she’s built. But at the same time, she is sacrificing herself and you can see that in her eyes when she talks.”
The one that The New Republic is calling crazy? Yeah, that one: I don’t know if TNR noticed or anything, but in 2007 Britney Spears had an extremely public nervous breakdown where she shaved her head and got tattooed because, quote, “I don’t want anyone touching me. I’m tired of everybody touching me.” The title of that article is, by the way, “Bald and Broken: Inside Britney’s Shaved Head” – and it rather explicitly signs off on O’Donnell’s notion that the stress felt by Britney Spears of being Britney Spears was breaking the woman. Oddly enough, nobody over at TNR took the trouble to castigate the author of said article (Sheila Marikar) for taking this position… probably because Sheila Marikar wasn’t standing between a Democrat and a Senate seat. (more…)
Twitter
, and is (to the best to my knowledge) in the public domain.Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com
