#rsrh Kaine Commands Cadre.

‘Don’t run against your own party head in the election.’ You’d think that this would be elementary political wisdom, much like ‘never get caught with a dead girl in your bed,’ ‘never pick a fight with a group that can plausibly use a ten year old precocious moppet as a spokesperson,’ and/or ‘never use the American flag to strangle a three-legged puppy on national television.’ But apparently Tim Kaine – nominal head of the DNC – feels the need to warn his own party’s legislators to ix-nay on the unning-ray against Obama-way:

“Democrats who kind of are afraid to be who they are, or are pushing back on their leaders, I think they’re crazy,” said Kaine during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “You can’t win as a Democrat without energizing Democratic voters, and if you pour cold water on them and think you’re going to win, it’s tough….The good news is this is not what I’m seeing generally, as I travel around.”

Apparently Fox News felt like being helpful, because the rest of the article provided amusing selections from all those politicians that Kaine didn’t see running away from the President (but felt the need to lecture anyway).  And if that wasn’t enough, Kimberly Strassel (H/T: Hot Air Headlines) looked at the three House Democrats who have most successfully pretended to be conservatives*: not unsurprisingly, they’re also doing distinctly better than their colleagues in equally at-risk districts.  I understand that Kaine needs to spin this, and he certainly needs to spin this now that it’s becoming increasingly clear that the DNC’s disastrous performance in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts was an appetizer for Democratic disaster in November, and not the main course; but he could have come up with something better, surely.  Something not so evocative of panic.

Hey, what about calling Republicans racist?  It’s not like the Democrats go often to that particular well.

Moe Lane

*There is no such thing as a conservative Democrat.  A ‘conservative’ Democrat will happily caucus with a party that puts its doctrinaire liberals in leadership positions, and that particular vote invalidates any supposedly ‘principled’ stances later.  Walt Minnick, Bobby Bright, and Gene Taylor (the three mentioned by Strassel) are as much enablers of Pelosi/Waxman/Frank as are Charlie Rangel, Alan Grayson, and Carol Shea-Porter.

Never forget this.

This Scott Pilgrim review is worrisome.

The reviewer liked it a lot, but…

It doesn’t matter if older critics like The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt don’t get it, because they’re from a generation that’s largely incapable of “getting it”. That’s not a knock against the 40 and older folk—it’s simply a cultural incompatability, as proven by nearly every single negative review of the film. (No, seriously, check their ages. The majority of them are over 40.)

I mean, I’m forty.  And I’m trying to get together enough free time to see it this weekend.  So I find this news problematical.

#rsrh So voters are ‘sour,’ Sen Schumer?

Sour and not recognizing your greatness and not properly appreciative of all the wonderful things that your party has done to them. And you’re very, very, very indignant that they’re not running around singing your praises… and more importantly, that they’re not planning to particularly vote for most of your colleagues.  So I guess that means that, instead of the voters not really caring about those little, porky amendments:

…what actually happened is that they didn’t really care for those amendments.

Oops?

Anyway, Hot Air’s ‘looking forward’ to you running the Democratic side of the Senate next year; my hope that you won’t be able  to do is not quite dead.  After all, we’ve gotten CT-SEN down to single digits already and it isn’t even Labor Day yet.  Hey: can’t win if you don’t bloody try…

Moe Lane

For the record…

…I did have Aaron Burr on my list (there must have been a glitch in the final total). For that matter, I had precisely two people on my list (Burr and Benedict Arnold) and stopped there because those two raised the bar pretty freaking high… although I would have probably added the Rosenbergs, if I had thought of them.

This isn’t meant to be a criticism of John’s polls, by the way: they’re interesting and fun.

Harry Reid is a hypocrite on birthright citizenship.

Red Dog Report, Weasel Zippers, and the Washington Times all – gleefully, as well they should – report that Harry Reid introduced legislation that would have ended birthright citizenship in 1993. This makes Reid’s recent declaration that he couldn’t understand why any Hispanic could destroy his son in the polls be a Republican seem a bit… what’s the word? Nuanced? Contradictory? I’ve got it: “hypocritical.”

Seriously, there’s no wiggle room in the language that he introduced:

TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.

Now, I happen to oppose ending birthright citizenship. I’ve always opposed ending birthright citizenship, and I don’t think that I will ever stop oppose ending birthright citizenship* – no matter how unpopular taking that stance makes me. So it gives me no little pleasure to note that this makes me fundamentally different than Harry Reid, who is being a hypocritical, duplicitous, and quite possibly racist suckweasel on this issue; I add ‘quite possibly racist‘ because it’s entirely possible that Harry Reid tried this trick because he doesn’t believe that Hispanics know how to read

Moe Lane Continue reading Harry Reid is a hypocrite on birthright citizenship.

Well, it’s Friday.

And… I don’t think that I have anything, really. It’s August, it’s Friday, and it’s the morning. Sure, there’s this fantastic graph (via Instapundit):

…that teases at a wondrous election shellacking for the Democrats in November, but other than that it’s kind of dull right now. So I don’t know. Maybe something will come up later.

Gee, I hope that Shrum is ignored.

It’d be awful if the Democrats were to take Bob Shrum’s advice about how to salvage the 2010 elections by having the President give “a major speech that redraws the dividing lines.” God help the Republican party if Obama ever decided to break with tradition and do one of those. We’d all be doomed.

DOOMED!

Moe Lane

PS: By the way, if you’re wondering how seriously you should be taking Bob Shrum, consider this: last year by his own admission Shrum was working under the assumption that the Republican party “would be punished in the midterms.”  Meanwhile, last year I was talking about how getting back the House of Representatives was in fact a realistic goal for the GOP.  But then, I’m of this country, while people like Shrum generally seem to act like they’re merely from it.

Just saying.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.