Yesterday at Columbia University there was an event called No Labels that is supposed to give a voice to moderates, or something. In 2008, the AARP trotted out the Divided We Fail marketing campaign that is strikingly similar to No Labels. When ObamaCare rolled around the AARP doubled down on being divided and endorsed the most divisive legislation in decades.
Labels are fine. In fact, many of the people that attended the event were using them at the the event. Bunny Davis of Tucson warned about those “extremists” taking over Arizona. Davis doesn’t want to be labeled, but it’s okay to label others. Has any political movement ever amounted to anything that didn’t have a cause or a label? If you don’t stand for anything who cares what you think? The nation is polarized, but the idea that things are less civil is preposterous.
Washington does not have a “civility problem.” It has a polarization problem. Politicians aren’t any meaner now than they were 30 years ago. It’s just that over the last few decades, the two parties have become more ideologically coherent. Back in the 1950s, some Southern Democrats opposed racial integration, and some Republicans in the North favored a robust social safety net.
It was nice to see Governor Charlie Crist attending the events. Here’s a guy who has worn as many labels he can find. Now he’s trying to cast himself as above labels. Crist’s political journey over the last 18 months is one of legend. The reason Crist’s political career is over is because he represents what people don’t like… politicians. It’s not the labels, Crist. It’s the fact you will say or do anything to advance your career. Here’s a concept: stand for something!
June hasn’t been kind to the Washington Post’s David Weigel. Last week Weigel described the Rep Etheridge fiasco as a “hug.” At the time I wondered why the Washington Post has a liberal covering conservatives. Just in case anyone is concerned about Weigel’s “liberal credentials” he’s a member of JournoList, a controversial members-only forum devoted to liberal bloggers and journalists.
It’s only there that these progressives feel comfortable enough to be honest. They can discuss “hiding the decline” and “fake but accurate” news stories secure in the belief they’re intellectually and morally superior to those right wing neanderthals. The secret handshakes all went wrong this week as someone has leaked some of his comments from JournoList:
Weigel’s Words:
•”This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.”
•”Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there — nor in DC at all.”
•”I’d politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it.”
•”It’s all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn’t get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV.”
The only thing more predictable than finding out a journalist is liberal is discovering a journalist who has to apologize. When I say apologize what I really mean is justify. That’s all an apology is these days. “I’m sorry you find my behavior offensive, but I’m you’ll understand after I justify it.” Instead of wishing Matt Drudge would set himself on fire perhaps he should just hug out his differences. Why is this guy covering Republicans?
The new immigration law in Arizona has been greeted with the typical uninformed outrage on the left. You know the drill. Supporters of the bill are racists, fascists, and backward isolationists. But have these emotional critics actually read the bill? Given the amount of uninformed rhetoric going around it seems as if the left has ignored the content of the bill. Byron York asks the same question in his op-ed.
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Basically all this law requires is an immigration background check if someone is pulled over. The shocking part is there had to be a law passed for this. The left might as well complain that the police check for outstanding warrents if you get pulled over for a missing tail light. If it happens to me I’m just out of luck. If we do it to an illegal immigrant it’s racism.

Meanwhile there’s reletive silence from the press about. the May “Che” Day protests coming up. The stance is clear on the left: anarchists and socialists are cool but don’t you dare advocate small government. The playbook is clear as well. If you disagree with the progressives on any issue you’re a radical racist who is in love with fascism. What ever happened to law enforcement?

Recent Comments