Archive for January 4th, 2011

First up on the delusional hit parade, The Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers, commenting on his return to DC to loiter in the Oval Office until his next photo-op or vacation, when asked about what he would be facing upon his return:

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I mean, I think that there’s going to be politics. That’s what happens in Washington. They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time. But I’m pretty confident that they’re going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that were creating a competitive economy for the 21st century; not just for this generation but the next one. 

“Our job is to govern”…yes, and that would be by actually pushing the last Congress to actually pass a budget instead of engaging that shameful progressive legislative orgy before passing out of town…and into different jobs.  Governing is not forcing through a wish-list of legislation proposed to and rejected by the American voter.  If the Repubs really did get the message, and understand that this is their very last chance, I suspect that the President will actually witness governing first hand.  And I don’t think he’ll much like it.

And so my expectation, my hope is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012, and that our job this year is to make sure that we build on the recovery. We started to make good progress on that during the lame duck, and I expect to build on that progress when I get back. All right?

Given that arrogance and condescension are part of his general MO, it doesn’t surprise me that he is so supportive of what transpired in the lame duck session.  The truth is that the campaigning will require Boehner to do the right things with the full understanding that the Left and the legacy media (but I repeat myself) will vilify and attack them regardless of what he does.  But those people didn’t elect him.  If he stands firm, even to the point of a government shutdown to help the left come to terms with its shameful spending problem, then he will have successfully campaigned, and President Can’tIJustEatMyWaffle knows it.  Unfortunately, with McConnell, it would require him to somehow discover a spine that up to this point, he has never had.  The House is going to take the lead, and I hope the freshmen make sure the lines are clearly drawn, and that they make the Left own every last bit of their thieving redistributionist agenda.

Our second contestant on “What is the weather like on your planet?” is Slate magazine’s Michael Kinsley.  Normally, I would avoid mocking the brain-damaged out of sense of basic decency, but for some reason, the Left keeps treating Kinsley as if he is an honored spokesman, and when what such spokesmen say is irredeemably stupid, scorn and derision are appropriate responses.  When I saw this piece of “deep thought” on Politico, I couldn’t resist.

But a letter to the editor in the Economist a couple weeks later offered a truly original idea, which would work here as well as in Japan: let children vote. Or rather, extend the franchise to children, but let parents vote on their underage children’s behalf. In effect, parents would get an extra vote for every child. How would this solve the entitlement problem? It wouldn’t, directly. But it would revise the allocation of political power to more closely reflect who has the most at stake. It would reward long-term thinking rather than short-term thinking. Right now seniors are all-powerful because they vote in such large numbers, while young people must rely on the good will of their parents and grandparents to protect their interests. Every politician invokes “our children” as the most important consideration on every issue, and then, having done so, is free to ignore them.

I am the last person to cheer for Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, but after understanding the “Complete Lives” philosophy that undergirds the entire Obamacare travesty, this seems to dovetail a bit too nicely for my comfort.  Of course, it would be an idea that the Left would look at, because it conforms to their basic belief that government needs to be involved in the lives of people, and especially children, because children who grow up under the guiding hand of the state don’t find the same level of objectionability to that guiding hand continuing to meddle in their lives as it picks their pockets when they grow up, as do children who were actually raised, provided, and cared for by their families.  But then, when you’re brain-damaged, its easy to pretend that people who have none of society’s burdens and not of its responsibilities it have the all-important “skin in the game” simply because they will one day grow up get older.  Almost as easy as it is for them to pretend that they are all about “long-term thinking” as they spend future generations into slavery.  Of course, the cynical side of me says that this is all just hand-wringing theatre, and what is driving this is the realization that the Left is having a harder time maintaining of base of voters that it can take for granted, so more votes that could be manipulated would be a good thing.  I wonder if they were to get such a measure if they then might recognize the President’s addresses to school children as blatant political acts?

A Constitutional amendment enacted during the Vietnam war, when young people were killing and dying for a democracy they couldn’t participate in, sets the voting age as 18. But the exact wording makes this an upper limit.(“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age”). Congress could lower the voting age further in federal elections without amending the Constitution again. States may set the voting age in state elections, but not in federal ones. What the courts would make of a law that gave teenagers the right to vote and then immediately took it away and assigned it to their parents, we can only imagine. But it surely would not go over well with teenagers themselves.

But of course, payment was being tendered for the right, and it is difficult to make the case that if you are old enough to defend the country, then you should have the right to vote for the leaders of the country that you might be expected to die for.  In the case of younger children, the argument is actually that extending the right to vote to them is perpetuating the pox already afflicting society where we have extended rights and privilege without expecting corresponding responsibility in return.   And if we gave them this right and then took it away, “it would not go over well”?  Seriously?  It does not go over well when I tell my boys that it is time for bed, either, but as an adult, and a parent, I have the right to determine an appropriate bedtime and the responsibility to make sure that they go to bed and get enough rest.  This perspective reflects the same kind of limp-wristed parenting that the state uses to justify taking toys out of Happy Meals…the parent who just cannot say “No.”

Is the average teenager responsible enough to deserve the most precious right of citizenship—the right to vote? Can we count on them to study the issues and the candidates, discuss and weigh them, and exercise this solemn privilege with the care it demands? Oh, probably not. But how about the average adult?

And the coup de grace…the admission that there are a large number of adults who fail to take their right to vote seriously…they would be the ones who were chanting “YES WE CAN!” and talking about how “stupid” Sarah Palin is without ever once giving a serious thought to Obama’s qualifications as they pulled the lever for him.   It is an odd thing to emphasize, but in a political philosophy that often takes the simplest concepts and turns them around 180 degrees, it was probably a safe bet.  Hell, I imagine that even he thinks he was talking about us, and not the Left’s own voters, and in the end, displays the trademark wisdom of the Left: 

“If you think something is broken, you better give it your best effort, and make sure that it is broken.”

Read Full Post »