Category Archives: BUTTIGIEG

What the double endorsement at the New York Times tells us

Faced with a field of highly defective Democrat candidates, the New York Times hides behind identity politics to endorse two seriously flawed women.

Yesterday, the New York Times came in for a good deal of both criticism and laughter when it endorsed not one but two candidates: Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The mere fact that it’s trying to move two candidates forward simultaneously shows a certain desperation.

And then there was the bizarre illustration that the Times used, one that turned the candidates blue in order to avoid revealing that both women are snowy white. The Times tried to disguise its obvious intent by giving the picture the look of an old-fashioned photo negative (something today’s young people have never seen):

New York Times Warren Klobuchar

When I saw the picture, I had to laugh, because it ties in perfectly with a story about my sister. This was in the late 1950s, when she was very little, maybe three. Dad came home with a developed film roll which, in those days, included the negatives as well as the photographs.

My sister was less interested in the photos than she was in the negatives, with all their upside-down colors. Later that day, when Mom took my sister shopping, they saw a black person at the store and, for the first time, my sister had a name for people whose skin color was the opposite of hers.

“Look, Mommy,” she hollered at the top of her voice. “It’s a negative!”

I can’t help but think that one of the editors at the New York Times was present in the store that day and took inspiration from a toddler’s wonderment.

So please remember, dear Democrats: The New York Times isn’t endorsing two white women, it’s endorsing two negatives.

The double endorsement reveals how desperately frightened Dems are about their own party’s weaknesses. Neither Klobuchar nor Warren is a frontrunner. Indeed, according to today’s running averages poll at Real Clear Politics, Klobuchar only occasionally makes it into the top five or six, while Warren is scrambling to stay in third place:

So what’s going on? Why can’t the New York Times just go with the current leader, Joe Biden, a mainstay of Democrat party politics for decades?

The Times is grappling with the fact that it’s been burnt before. In 2016, we were all promised that Hillary was inevitable because she was a Clinton, a woman and, after that first failed run against Obama, it was her turn. Biden’s that same thing all over. He may be a man, but he’s got some of the Obama cachet and, after several failed presidential runs, it’s his turn.

The problem is that Biden has the same flaws as Hillary: He has a tin ear and he’s corrupt, something that’s going to become very obvious if Democrats insist on a full impeachment, complete with witnesses. Add to that the creepy factor of Biden’s constantly groping and snuggling up to little girls, and you can see where the establishment worries he’s a time bomb.

There’s also the problem of Joe’s chronic foot-in-mouth disease, exacerbated by something that may be incipient senile dementia. Once Biden is facing off against Trump in a debate, even black voters’ loyalty to him because of his Obama ties may not be enough to get him to the finish line.

And Sanders? The base may love this open socialist, but across America, away from the Blue coasts (plus a few dots in the Midwest, Southeast, and Pacific Ocean), people don’t like the idea of electing a man who wants to grow government. They also wonder about the moral principles (or lack of same) that allow a man to have unswerving loyalty to socialism even though he was alive during the decades in which socialism stacked up a hundred million dead bodies and billions of ruined lives. They can tell that his plans promise the worst for America. (I’ve detailed the problems here, here, here, and here.) It takes a modern college education, one heavy on Marxist indoctrination and light on knowledge and wisdom, to support Bernie.

Warren is the next most popular candidate in most polls, although she’s battling a bit with Buttigieg and Bloomberg. If numbers were all that mattered, the Times could as easily have endorsed Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Except that it couldn’t. Not really.

As I’ve written before, while Buttigieg is bright, intellectually agile, and served his country, he’s also someone who’s only real political asset is that he’s gay. Take away the gay and you’re left with a white, two-term mayor of a mid-sized American city that has an outsized crime rate and a local black community that’s extremely hostile to him. This hostility has spread to blacks across America. Buttigieg’s neither a statesman nor an executive. He’s the high school class valedictorian who thinks he’s special because he’s the teachers’ pet. Americans will not think he’s special.

Some Democrats are looking to Mike Bloomberg as their savior because he sounds sane. He’s also willing to invest billions and billions in the race so that, even if he doesn’t win, Trump doesn’t either. Those Democrats who haven’t gone entirely to the socialized dark side like to point out that Bloomberg has been a fiscal conservative in the past. Except that now that he’s in the race, Bloomberg has already begun pandering. Last night, he promised to create a program giving blacks $70 billion in reparations — all to be managed out of the White House, of course.

Aside from the fiscal conservativism and his stop-and-frisk policies, for which he’s already apologized, Bloomberg is an across-the-board Leftist. He supports unlimited abortion, birth control for teenagers, open borders, amnesty, socialized medicine, and the end of the coal industry to satisfy the climate change gods. In addition, he promises to micromanage our diets and even the way in which Jews can circumcise their babies.

Here’s another way of looking at Bloomberg’s politics: Bernie’s socialism leads him to want to control everything. Bloomberg’s desire to control everything leads him to socialism. It’s not a big difference, but it’s a significant one nevertheless.

At the end of the day, Bloomberg’s flop-sweat neediness to win, his off-putting personality, the shameless pandering leading him away from his one decent principle (fiscal conservativism), and the stratospheric disconnection his wealth creates (promising to put coal miners out of work even as he owns more than ten houses, fleets of cars, and at least one plane) will not win over voters. Even investing billions cannot disguise that he’s an awful, charmless, arrogant, little man.

Of course, the big handicapped for Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg, aside from the crazy coincidence that the names with which they’re associated all start with “B,” is the fact that they’re white men. That’s a big no-no in today’s Democrat party. Andrew Yang is biologically not a white man, but he’s still a man and the Left keeps thinking that Asians are white because they do well in school and achieve economic success in life. So, no Yang.

The Times is therefore left with two blue women, one of whom is openly hard-Left and a liar, while the other tries to appear moderate but is, in fact, 90% Leftist. Klobuchar’s pose on the debate stage is to be the calm, principled realist, the one who’s not giving the farm away to the socialist comrades. Her policies, to the extent anyone can pin them down, however, hew Left and Lefter. Regarding trying to pin her down, though, it’s painfully clear that Klobuchar is not a leader; she’s a follower who has long been content to be a go-along-to-get-along Senator who does little other than sign group letters.

Still, Wikipedia gives us a little insight into what Klobuchar would stand for if she weren’t constantly hiding behind shrubbery. She’s for greater government surveillance, says America’s past “free society” just oppressed women, doesn’t want the census to record illegal aliens, opposes the death penalty, wants to raise teacher pay, opposed the Surge, supported Obama’s bombing Libya, supports the Iran Deal, supported Obamacare, she raised her hand for health care for illegal aliens. Klobuchar also supports abortion and her stance is a perfect example of her refusal to state her positions. Instead of saying, I support abortion, she’s one of those who says abortion is between a woman and her doctor. This ignores that there’s a larger principle involved, and turns abortion into just another item on the endless checklist of little ideas Klobuchar has.

And that’s the real problem with Klobuchar. She has no big principles. She inches along, mostly hewing Left, but having occasional moments of common sense, such as opposing free four-year college for all or trying to get Obama to attack China’s trade violations.

Klobuchar ends up reminding me of two people, one real, one fictional. When it comes to that lack of any principles and that urge to micromanage, she reminds me of Jimmy Carter. Bloomberg likes to micromanage too, but that’s because he’s a born despot. That’s not Klobuchar. Let me explain.

When Carter was president, a family friend, an engineer, told us that Carter’s problem was that, because he had no big principles, all he could do was follow the data. And whenever the data changed, his direction changed. That’s an excellent quality in an engineer, but a lousy quality in a leader. A good leader sees the forest and knows it has trees in it. A great leader sees both forest and trees. A lousy leader gets lost in the trees or just wanders around them in state of mild discomfort.

If you didn’t like Carter, you won’t like Klobuchar.

Also, Klobuchar’s staffer revealed that she’s a really vicious person behind that moderate demeanor. In that way, she reminds me of Dolores Umbridge, in the Harry Potter books: A soft, smiling mien hiding the soul of a bureaucrat completely wedded to the system that supports her power:

Then there’s Warren. I don’t like her personally, I don’t like her Leftists politics, and I don’t like the endless, very big, very substantive lies she constantly tells to advance her career and her political goals.

I don’t want to hear anyone say, “Well, Trump lies too.” Trump puffs. Crowds aren’t big; they’re huge. His policies are good; they’re the best policies ever. He constantly boasts and wiggles around the margins, but he’s true at his core. He says what he believes. He also says what he intends to do and then he does it.

Warren, however, lies about core things. She lies about who she is, what she’s done, and what she will do. Or, as the Times politely phrases it, “Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.” She’s not a storyteller. She’s a stone-cold, sociopathic liar. Warren is Hillary, only with even less charm and more flop-sweat desperation to win, if either of those things is possible.

And so we get back to the main point, which is that, faced with an unelectable field, the Times decided to bunt and, as a last-ditch effort to save face in its world of identity politics, to split its endorsement between the two white women on the ticket. It’s a cowardly act, but one expects as much from the dinosaur media.

If you’ve ever seen Fantasia, this is what’s become of the New York Times, once one of the world’s mightiest newspapers in the grand old days of the dinosaur media:

Image credit: Screen grab; The New York Times.

The post What the double endorsement at the New York Times tells us appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Buttigieg’s rise highlights the travesty of the Democrat field

Pete Buttigieg is an intelligent man who has accomplished much in 37 years, is a doctrinaire Leftist, and is totally unqualified to be president.

When Trump first rode down the staircase in 2015 to announce his candidacy, the media considered him the biggest joke around. They gave him hundreds of hours of free air time because they thought it would be the best thing ever — for Hillary — if Trump were to become the Republican nominee. At the same time, large numbers of conservatives (myself included), where occupying “anyone but Trump” territory.

There was no doubt, of course, that Trump was a master showman and a truly charismatic speaker, something that caused Mark Steyn to realize as early as January 2015 that Trump could win.

Showmanship and charisma. They’re real and they’re matter. Moreover, Trump had then, as he continues to have, a genuine belief in America and Americans that couldn’t be faked.

But in the beginning, Trump also had something else to offer, something that most in the media ignored, but that the American voters valued; namely, Trump had vast executive experience. Paul Solotaroff, writing in September 2015 for Rolling Stone, was one of those who “got it.” In an article entitled “Taking Trump Seriously,” Solotaroff, after noting Trump’s loopy style coupled with his razor-sharp brain, pointed out something Democrat wished to forget (h/t Don Surber):

In all the hysteria, however, what’s often missed are the qualities that brought Trump here. You don’t do a fraction of what he’s done in life — dominate New York real estate for decades, build the next grand Xanadus for the super-rich on the far shores of Dubai and Istanbul, run the prime-time ratings table for more than 10 years and earn a third (or sixth) fortune at it – without being immensely cunning and deft, a top-of-the-food-chain killer.

Yeah. Trump’s good at business. Really good. Moreover, he didn’t make money the new way, by pushing or facilitating information (Bloomberg or the dot com guys), but the old fashioned way by building brick and mortar things. There’s nothing ephemeral about what Trump did, and it took a lot of knowledge, wheeling and dealing, and political acumen at home and abroad.

Sure, Trump filed for bankruptcy, but he did so (a) as a smart business decision because he was reorganizing his finances and (b) because he followed bad advice — and learned from that, vowing never to make the same mistake again (or at least to pull out before going into too deep a dive given that it’s not always clear until later whether advice is good or not).

And yes, Trump’s hurt people on the way up, but it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to hurt the American people, something that was much less certain with Hillary. The voters might as well have said out loud, “He’s a shark, but he’s our shark.”

Voters were very clear on the fact that, while Trump may not have had political experience, he knew politicians, he was vastly accomplished in the world of business and negotiations both at home and abroad, and he had a stunning record for getting things done. Most politicians can’t make that boast because they’re herd animals who move in little circles with their fellow beasts. Trump, who was 69 when he entered the White House, was a blazing whirlwind of accomplishments, Americanism, charm, charisma, and experience. Because president of the United States is a managerial position as much as anything else, Americans went for a successful manager.

I won’t spell out here Trump’s pre-election accomplishments (and failures) for they’re well known. I will note that it’s both refreshing and instructive to see what he’s achieved in less than three years in office despite the bogus Russian hoax and now the bogus Ukraine impeachment.

But what about Pete Buttigieg, aka, “Mayor Pete.” Should he be the Democrat presidential candidate and actually win, he will be 39, making him the youngest person ever elected president of the United States. What will he have accomplished in his 39 years before arriving at the White House? Because his CV is less well known than Trump’s was at this stage in the primary process, let me recite some of Buttigieg’s career high points:

Buttigieg was his high school’s valedictorian, chosen from a field of around 200 students.

While in high school, Buttigieg wrote an essay praising Bernie Sanders, the man who refuses to abandon communism despite more than 100 million communism-caused deaths in the 21st century. Buttigieg won a John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum “Profiles in Courage” award for that essay.

As an undergraduate at Harvard, Buttigieg majored in history and literature, and was president of the Student Advisory Committee of the Harvard Institute of Politics.

Buttigieg’s bachelor’s thesis was based upon Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, an anti-American novel about the earliest years of the Vietnam War. Greene’s general attitude (also seen in The Third Man) was that Americans ranged from dangerous because of naive stupidity to dangerous because of criminal venality. He didn’t like Americans. (This is not just my bias; even Slate concedes Greene’s hostility to Americans.) The essay was also based upon the work of Perry Miller, one of the first revisionists of American history. As an aside, Margaret Atwood dedicated The Handmaid’s Tale, the book responsible for all those idiot women wandering around in cloaks and hoods since Trump’s election, to Miller.

Buttigieg received a Rhodes Scholarship in 2004. On the one hand, good for him. Its a mark of his real intelligence and his being adept at the academic game (something he probably learned from his father, a professor at Notre Dame). On the other hand, keep in mind that, consistent with John O’Sullivan’s law, the Rhodes Scholarship is increasingly a vehicle for promoting Leftist ideology.

Buttigieg went to Oxford, receiving a BA with first class honors in philosophy, politics, and economics. Again, good for him. No one can or should question Buttigieg’s academic abilities. Everyone should keep in mind that being good at school does not necessarily translate into being effective outside of school.

During college, Buttigieg held the following jobs:

  • A student “investigative intern” at an NBC news affiliate in Chicago.
  • An intern for Democrat Jill Long Thompson’s unsuccessful congressional campaign.
  • A volunteer for Joe Donnelly’s successful congressional campaign.

After leaving Harvard, Buttigieg did the following:

  • A conference director for The Cohen Group, a business that helps businesses with overseas expansion. For those wondering, a conference director is responsible for the logistics of putting a conference together.
  • A policy and research specialist for John Kerry’s failed presidential campaign.

After leaving Oxford, Buttigieg’s days as a volunteer and minion were over and his real career began:

  • Buttigieg worked as a consultant at McKinsey & Company for three years in the areas of energy, retail, economic development and logistics. His company’s nondisclosure policy means that he cannot (and probably doesn’t want to) talk about the clients for whom he worked and the specifics of his research. It appears, though, that he did work for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, Best Buy, Loblaws (a Canadian supermarket chain). several government agencies (EPA, Energy Department, Defense Department, Postal Service), and a couple of environmentalist groups. Rather amusingly, he’s now getting heat from the Left for being connected with Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s decision to fire people to decrease costs, a charge he denies.
  • Buttigieg took a break to work on another unsuccessful Jill Long Thompson campaign, this time for Indiana governor.
  • In 2007, to his credit, Buttigieg enlisted in the Naval Reserve, where he trained to become an intelligence officer. He spent seven months in Afghanistan in 2014, assigned to a unit identifying and disrupting terrorist financial networks. He also was an armed driver on more than 100 trips to Kabul. Kudos to Buttigieg for being one of many brave Americans who put their lives on the line for us — in a war, incidentally, that the Obama administration consistently lied about to the American people, at the cost of thousands of people killed and wounded.
  • In 2010, Buttigieg ran for Indiana state treasurer — and lost.
  • In 2011, Buttigieg successfully ran for mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a city of slightly over 101,000 people. Out of the 14,883 people who voted, Buttigieg got 10,991 votes. He was reelected in 2015, receiving 8,515 votes from those South Bend residents who bothered to cast their ballots.

Regarding South Bend:

While mayor, Buttigieg can point to the following accomplishments:

  • Shortly into Buttigieg’s mayoralty, it emerged that the South Bend police had illegally recorded telephone calls. Buttigieg made what some would consider a reasonable decision, which is to conclude that the buck stops at the top. In line with that thinking, he demoted the police chief and asked for his resignation. The problem was that, in a city that is approximately 25% black, Buttigieg had turned on the first black police chief in a force that was only 6% black, and he did so right around Ferguson / Black Lives Matter. Buttigieg has since apologized for his managerial decision, but blacks remain hostile to him. It seems to me that, as a manager, Buttigieg made the right call. As a Leftist politician, he did not. And as a person of backbone, his subsequent abasement is unappealing.
  • Throughout his mayoralty, Buttigieg presided over redevelopment of abandoned sites and sold city-owned properties to private developers. While these projects may have been good for South Bend overall (and I don’t know whether that’s true or not), because many blighted properties were in primarily black communities, homes and buildings in those communities vanished, leading to further black dislike for Buttigieg.
  • Buttigieg was a major figure in creating nightly laser light show, paid for with privately raised funds.
  • In his proposal for the 2014 budget, Buttigieg proposed combining three separate departments into one to save costs and improve efficiency, but his proposal failed.
  • In 2015, Buttigieg came out against Indiana Senate Bill 101 (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), which allows individuals and companies to assert as a defense in legal proceedings that charges against them or demands on them violate their religious freedom. Both before and after its passage, it’s been perceived as a bill hostile LGBTQ-etc people. In addition to coming out against the Act, its passage prompted Buttigieg to come out as gay. Ever since, Buttigieg has been openly hostile to Vice President Mike Pence (who, as Indiana governor signed the bill into law).
  • Buttigieg proposed and mentored a “Smart Streets” urban development plan to turn one-way streets into two-way streets, widen sidewalks, plant trees and install decorative brickwork, add bike lines and roundabouts, and “calm” traffic. This is credited with spurring private development, although the article claiming this is remarkably lukewarm when it comes to facts. One major developer who was planning on building anyway said it was a nice idea, a professor said it was a nice idea too, and another developer said he thought the street modification was really helpful.
  • Buttigieg invested in city parks and leveraged federal funds to help prevent sewage overflow.
  • Buttigieg launched a “home repair” initiative, making funds available to residents wanting to do home repairs, especially Green repairs.

We’re getting into minutiae now. I’ll end by saying that, if you go to Wikipedia, you can see details about the above initiatives and several others that Buttigieg led or in which he participated, all aimed at bringing in money and reorganizing the city government. The penny ante stuff mostly went through while Buttigieg struggled with larger initiatives, whether they passed or not. The pattern seemed to be that the city’s Deep State resisted re-organization and, if Buttigieg was successful in pushing through urban redevelopment, they displaced minority communities.

My sense is that Buttigieg was neither a bad mayor nor a good one. He was a decent mayor who was trying to make his city a more attractive place, with mixed success. Typical for Leftists, he was very gung-ho about combining government and private assets, and then was surprised and dismayed when the people bullied by the combined forces of government and big developers reacted badly.

For a 37-year-old, Buttigieg’s political accomplishments are decent, his military service is laudable, and his intelligence is real. He’s also a smooth and articulate speaker. I disagree strongly with his politics — for he has shown unswerving devotion to the modern, hard Left Democrat party throughout his life — but even that’s not the real issue.

The real issue is that there’s absolutely nothing in Buttigieg’s resume, whether his good grades, his 7-month military tour, his short stint in the private sector, or his average service as mayor, to indicate that he has the experience or the ability to take on the role of senior executive officer for the entire United States of America.

Boiled down to its essentials, all that Buttigieg he has to offer is being the gay version of Obama. After all, Obama had nothing to offer in terms of experience or expertise for the role he took on and, once in that role (i.e., as President) his accomplishments were dismal, to say the least. In fewer than three years, although Trump hasn’t been able to undo all the damage Obama caused, he’s been able to dismantle just about everything Obama put in place. Indeed, the only thing Trump couldn’t fully dismantle was Obamacare, and that failure was on McCain, a petty, vindictive man who put his private grievances ahead of the nation.

Democrats loved Obama’s policies so much they’ve now rank him higher than George Washington (who was a slave owner and a war monger, right?). I have to believe, however, that it was his melanin that gave him a special place in Leftist hearts. That is, Leftism alone wasn’t enough. Obama had the race factor.

In 2019, for all that the Left adores the LGBTQ etc. agenda (which it sees as a battering ram for its control over American culture), I don’t see that slavish devotion transferring to Buttigieg just because he’s gay. It’s one thing to write devotionals about Jesus Obama or the Magic Negro, given America’s long and complicated relationship with American blacks.

It’s another thing entirely to get ordinary Americans on board with the Magic Homosexual. After all, while gays have in the past been derogatorily called “fairies” (and drag queens revel in the image), I don’t think calling Buttigieg a “Magic Homosexual” has quite the same connotation as the Obama worship we saw.

It says a great deal that Buttigieg has emerged as one of the front runners in the Democrat primary race. The more senior people in the race (i.e., Warren and Sanders) are so hard Left that the same more moderate Democrats who madly embraced Obama are likely to be less enthused about embracing a little gay guy, with a mediocre record, whom African-Americans (the single most important voting block in the Democrat party) dislike.

Image credit: Pete Buttigieg caricature by Donkey Hotey; Creative commons, some rights reserved.

The post Buttigieg’s rise highlights the travesty of the Democrat field appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Thoughts about the two Democrat debates

The Democrat Debates were indeed boring, but they were also a wonderful insight into Democrat policies and candidate strengths and weaknesses.

I watched both of the Democrat debates. I’ve now had 43 hours to ruminate about Wednesday’s debate and 19 hours to ruminate about Thursday’s debate. That’s given me a little perspective. For what it’s worth, here’s what I think:

I. The debates as a whole.

When Obama ran in 2008 and again in 2012, he tried to underplay his radicalism. Both times, he played lip service to the center and then governed to the Left. A perfect example concerns how he handled LGBT issues, whether for open military service or getting married. He assured voters that neither would happen and then went and supported the more Leftward policies anyway. I’m not opining about the policies. I’m just pointing out that Obama lied.

What’s refreshing about the current crop of candidates is that they are not disguising their political beliefs and practical goals. Given that Trump is completely open about his traditional American political values and that the Democrats have stopped hiding their Leftism, this may be the most honest political campaign since the one in 1860.

Indeed, if the ultimate Democrat primary victory retains that honesty into the election campaign, rather than trying to rewrite the history of whatever he or she said during the primaries, we will not see the usual presidential campaign in which candidates circle the middle (a middle that moved increasingly Left beginning in the 1990s). Instead, there are some very stark differences here. Talk about American having a true “time for choosing.”

One of the major differences between every single Dem candidate on the one hand and Trump on the other hand, is the way in which they view America. Obama occasionally leaked out comments showing his dislike and disdain for both America and Americans, but he tried to dress his politics in the upbeat, and entirely meaningless, mantra of hope. Yeah, sure America was great he said, but he would make it so great it would be “fundamentally transformed,” apparently into a different kind of greatness entirely. But it was all great.

Trump, of course, is Mr. Optimistic. He has wonderful visions about a great America that will still be a recognizable America, although better than ever before. Most importantly, it won’t be socialist country. It will continue to be a free market, sovereign nation in which people benefit from small government, individual liberty, and true equality before the law. Our foreign friends will respect us and our foreign enemies will fear us (as they should). Indeed, some of our foreign enemies may well have abandoned their wicked ways to join the community of nations. Trump is optimistic and endlessly upbeat.

The twenty Democrat candidates paraded before the American people on Wednesday and Thursday are pessimistic, angry people who live in a dystopian reality that they hope to make worse for everyone. Theirs is a world in which people are starving and dying in the streets, filth is piled everywhere, there are no jobs, an apocalyptic climate “emergency” is waiting around the corner, the races despise each other, and gay people are marginalized and dying.

Thinking about it, there is some truth to their reality: They’re pretty much describing Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, inner city Washington D.C., de Blasio’s New York, the whole states of California and Illinois, and any other communities in which Leftists have been free to have their wicked ways.

Listening to Democrat candidates’ dystopian visions, it was as if the Trump economy never happened. There is no record low unemployment amongst blacks and Hispanics; there is no 3%  or more quarterly economic growth; and there is no vibrant stock market, one based on real economic gains rather than the Obama market, when fearful investors parked their money in the market because they were afraid to put it into an unstable real economy.

No one should be too surprised, I guess, about the fantasy world the Leftists have built. After all, these are the same people who believe that a person’s biological sex is a social construct, that the sun has nothing to do with the earth’s climate, and that pot is harmless. Facts tend not to interfere with their belief systems.

Significantly, none of the 20 candidates is a happy warrior. All of them, instead, seem to be auditioning for a leadership role in a Mad Max movie — they will be the only stable dictator in a world of horrific violence, despair, and decay.

In addition, none of the 20 candidates has charm or charisma. I’ll talk about their individual traits below, but my overall takeaway was that these are very weak people. If you look at Trump, whether when he was campaigning in 2015 and 2016 or during his years as president, what you see is an effortless alpha male. He commands any space he’s in. He is optimistic and powerful. Whether or not you like where he plans to lead America, he is a relaxed, happy, effective leader. He’s also very, very funny and can show tremendous warmth and charm.

In contrast, the 20 Democrats are frenetic, shrill people who hoped to disguise their fundamental personal weaknesses by outshouting each other. Funnily enough, when I think of them, I think of a movie review I read at National Review. Yeah, I know that sounds like a non sequitur but it’s not.

The review was about Murder Mystery, a made-for-Netflix movie staring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler, both of whom are capable of being appealing. What piqued my interest about the review was the fact that Kyle Smith likened their teaming to Nick and Nora Charles, the dynamic married duo who starred in a series of Thin Man movies in the 1930s. Nick was played by the debonair William Powell and Nora by Myrna Loy, one of the most beautiful, charming, funny, appealing actresses ever to grace the silver screen. Here’s what Smith had to say:

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished UpAdam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston make a fine Nick and Nora Charles.

[snip]

In Murder Mystery, Sandler does the unexpected and plays a character who’s neither Kurt Cobain nor Jerry Lewis but just an ordinary working stiff with a slightly disappointed but basically loving wife. Thanks to a deft, funny script by James Vanderbilt and brisk direction by Kyle Newacheck, this throwback comedy turns out to be an easygoing charmer.

[snip]

Murder Mystery takes us back to the days when Nick and Nora Charles were martini-sipping crime-solvers in the six-film Thin Man series, updating the formula with a superb twist: This time the couple are working-class types who get pulled into a world of international playboys and billionaires’ yachts. Sandler’s Nick is a frustrated NYPD cop (he tells everyone he’s a detective, but he keeps flunking the exam) and Aniston is Audrey, his hairdresser wife of 15 years. He promised her a trip to Europe one day, but the money to pay for it has never come. He’s the kind of guy who buys her the wrong allergy medicine at the drugstore to save 50 cents. When he finally does decide to max out the credit card to get her that transatlantic vacation, Audrey sneaks into first class, where she meets a charming bon vivant (Luke Evans) who likes her enough to invite the pair of them to hang out on his yacht. She’s Jennifer Aniston, so this is plausible enough.

I have to part ways with Smith. Aside from the upper class setting, Aniston and Sandler are nothing like Nick and Nora. They’re neither witty nor charming. They are, instead, shrill, angry, and irritating, three traits that no sane Thin Man writer would ever have thrust upon those characters. I slogged through the end of Murder Mystery to see whodunnit (not worth the slog), and came away desperately disliking the lead characters.

That’s exactly how I felt watching the debate. I’d been promised that at least some of the candidates would offer charisma, if not wit and charm, but none offered anything. They were alternately shrill, angry, paranoid, irritating, greedy, totalitarian, and completely loopy (an adjective that’s not reserved solely for Sanders and Williamson). The thought that these types of human beings might lead our great nation was quite disturbing.

The candidates’ policy prescriptions matched their personalities. Across the board, they want to increase government power, raise taxes, impose socialized medicine, upend the Second Amendment, abort babies up to the minute of birth, and open our borders while promising free medical care, education, and welfare to all comers. In other words, they imagine a dictatorship of the elite — an angry, paranoid, elite that hates so much the people over which it governs that it wants to import an entirely new, more amenable group of people over which it can govern.

Regarding importing a whole new demographic, as several people commented it was often unclear whether the candidates in these Democrat debates wanted to be president of existing, legal American citizens, or were seeking the votes of Latin Americans who have yet to arrive here illegally. I listened to Derek Hunter’s podcast today, and he said it was as if the candidates vying for Angela Merkel’s position in Germany tout to the voters all the good things they promise to do for France.

It’s the rare, peculiar, and frightening candidate who doesn’t pander to his own voters, but panders instead to citizens of another nation entirely. It’s hints that these candidates believe that, between now and November 2020, they can get enough illegal aliens into America to vote a Democrat into office.

II. The individual candidates

And now a few thoughts about the individual candidates at the Democrat debates. It’s a given that all of them said things intended to appeal to their mad base (open borders, socialized medicine for all comers, unlimited abortion, high taxes, gun seizures, abasement before Iran, the destruction of the American economy through a Green New Deal, etc.). My comments are just about their personalities. Ladies first.

Kamala Harris presents with a flat, Fran Drescher voice and a naggy personality. She can definitely go on the attack, as she did with her probable lies to Biden about busing. My question, though, is whether American voters really want to elect as president their hated ex-wife or the mother with whom they had issues, especially when she’s made it plain that she wants to empty their bank accounts and control every aspect of their lives? Heck, if they wanted that, they could have stayed married to that shrew or accepted living in mad Mom’s basement….

Also, contrary to Harris’s “I’m the only black person here” statement, she has something significant in common with Obama: She’s a fake American black, for her black-skinned father is very elite Jamaican man and she was raised for a significant part of her life outside of America. In other words, Harris has no connection to the American black experience.

Kirsten Gillibrand presents with a shrill, childish voice and an angry, bossy personality. She demands attention, rather than earns it, and when she gets it, she hectors people sharply. For all her anger, her history of flip-flopping frantically to whatever the political winds demand tells me that, if you put her in a room with a mullah or a member of North Korea’s Kim clan, she’ll collapse like an old tissue.

Amy Klobuchar has a no-nonsense affect that reminds me strongly of my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Fukuda. Or maybe she’s like some Mary Poppins-esque nanny who firmly puts you in your place. Indeed, her presentation is so firm and normal that it’s easy to forget that, when it comes to policies, she’s as Leftist as the rest of them. In other words, she’s the school teacher from Hell.

Tulsi Gabbard was in the military. Did you know that? She definitely was in the military. She’s happy to tell you over and over again that she was in the military. When she talks about the military, her voice takes on the harsh tones of a drill sergeant. The rest of the time, she sounds, not sedate, but sedated. And by the way, she was in the military. I’ve also heard she looks nice in a bikini. Trump, I’m certain, does not.

Elizabeth Warren is someone about whom I cannot be objective because I’ve disliked her for thirty years, going back to her banking law class. Learning that Warren leveraged family lore into a well-paying Harvard gig based upon imaginary diversity did not make me like her more. Learning that she lied her way into fame by gaming statistics about medical care and family bankruptcy did not make me like her more. Hearing her denigrate individual achievement in America (“you didn’t build that”) did not make me like her more. Her current assurances that for everything she dislikes about America she has a plan, when it’s clear that the plan is always about more taxes and more power for the government, do not make me like her more. And finally, her spinsterish, scolding presence on the debate stage does not make me like her more. I really dislike her.

Marianne Williamson is the hippie whom time forgot. Most of the time she spoke with the earnestness of a stoned preacher on the corner of Haight and Ashbury in 1967. “Love, man . . . yeah, that will heal the world. Just more love and maybe some health-giving flowers for America’s inner being. I’ll drop love bombs on Kim Jong-un and the Mullahs. Even our archest of arch enemies, Donald Trump, will feel the healing power of my love deep in his evil soul. Nameste, America. Peace.”

And now the men, in alphabetical order:

Michael Bennet had a hysterical quality I found very disturbing. There’s something emotionally off about the man.

Joe Biden really did try to be Mr. Normal in a field of radicals but he lost it there when he said that his first act as president, should he win, would be to defeat Donald Trump. Otherwise, he was pathetic as he tried desperately to find his footing while crossing the ice floes made up of his decades in Democrat politics all the while fending off the snapping young Democrat dogs surrounding him.

Cory Booker will be defined forever by the horror that showed on his face when he realized that Beta has stolen his “I speak Spanish” shtick. Otherwise, he was his usual glib, insincere self. His insistence that the rights of black transgenders is a matter of paramount concern was peculiar. He also sounded ineffective when he complained about crime in the city in which he once sat as mayor. All I could think of was “you had once job….”

Pete Buttigieg is another ineffectual mayor. He presides over the 300th largest city in America, a position he won by 8,000 plus votes. That’s not 8,000+ votes more than his competitors. That’s total votes. The blacks in his city despise him because it’s obvious that he always viewed them, not as his job, but as stepping stones to something bigger. His constant attacks on Christians are a glaringly obvious psychological insight into his anguish about living a life inconsistent with Biblical precepts (for the Bible is not fond of gay sex), but are decidedly unappealing in an American presidential candidate. Also, he looks like Beaver Cleaver’s radical Leftist brother — immature and politically dangerous.

Julian Castro is short and wants abortions for transgender women (i.e., men). He cannot win and should leave the national stage before he embarrasses himself further. By the way, I too am short and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that in a telegenic age, a pipsqueak who is confused about basic human biology squaring off against the alpha male Trump is not a good look. Buttigieg, by the way, also suffers from the short man problem.

Bill de Blasio has only one advantage in the race, which is that he’s tall enough to square off physically against Trump. Otherwise, I wouldn’t buy a used car from that corrupt, hypocritic, and I certainly wouldn’t trust him to take possession of American’s money and redistribute it. Also, considering that monied New Yorkers are leaving in droves, taking away the funds supporting his crazed, corrupt socialism, is not a selling point for the rest of America.

John Delaney was slightly more sane than the rest of the people on the stage. He’s also bland and is a little too obsessed with his own father. He has no chance.

John Hickenlooper is a nattering old maid. Old maid men do not win in American politics. The only thing that puts the lie to his old maid status — and most decidedly not in a good way — is that he sat through a porn flick with his mother.

Jay Inslee is a scary dude. He’s an apocalyptic street corner preacher, but with a better haircut. His end-of-days climate obsession is not a winner.

Beto O’Rourke is Beta O’Rourke. Take away the skateboard and the flapping arms (and did you notice how careful the MSNBC/NBC camera men were to hide his hands?) and you’ve got the kid in the dorm who thought he was deep and cool while everyone else knew full well that he was a not-very-bright dork. Dork’s don’t win presidential campaigns.

Tim Ryan is visually identical to Inslee. Other than that, I can’t remember a darn thing about him.

Bernie Sanders — I’ve covered Bernie in a separate blog. He’s a mean-spirited, evil, foaming-at-the-mouth, yellow-toothed socialist tyrant wannabe.

Eric Swalwell is running a campaign that can be summed up thusly: The Second Amendment is toilet paper. All the other candidates also want to take your guns, but Swalwell is the most fanatic on the subject. Let me remind you of other politicians who seized guns: Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, the Kims, etc. I’m sure Swalwell doesn’t believe he ever could be a tyrant, but the temptation is always there for a political leader once the people he’s disarmed stand helpless before him.

Andrew Yang opposes circumcision. Aside from being fundamentally anti-Semitic, because circumcision is Judaism’s core covenant with God, it’s also an unhealthy position, for there’s indisputable evidence that circumcision slows the spread of certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably AIDS. I cannot support him under any circumstances. I also think the whole “give every $1,000” is stupid. Why not just lower tax rates? That way, taxpayers will keep their own money in proportion to the money they’re forced to pay, while those who don’t pay taxes don’t just get more free cash.

The post Thoughts about the two Democrat debates appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 5/5/19 — Venezuela is socialism illustrated edition

In Venezuela, maybe today being Cinco de Mayo will magically strengthen citizens in their fight against tyranny. Meanwhile, in the U.S. we’ll keep our guns.





Venezuela socialism guns

























(Unless, of course, you’re the French president. To me, it looks very, very French.)





















The post Bookworm Beat 5/5/19 — Venezuela is socialism illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

The “no news is good news” open thread

Thanks to President Trump, it’s mostly good news out there, which is great for America (yay!), but limiting for a blogger. What do you think?

Scott Adams made an excellent point the other day, which is that, now that the media can no longer waffle on about Russian collusion (at least those in the media who retain some vestiges of sanity), there isn’t much news going on. After all, news tends to follow the “if it bleeds it leads” principle or, alternatively, “if it creates panic it leads” principle.

Thanks to Trump, Adams notes, all the panic points within America are gone. Trump is building the wall and threatening to give sanctuary cities what they asked for; North Korea seems to be pacified; the Mullahs are feeling pressure from reinstated sanctions; the economy is roaring, people haven’t died in droves since the Trump administration and the courts clipped Obamacare’s wings; Israel has a real ally in the White House; ISIS is militarily gone; Saudi Arabia is moderating, etc.

Moreover, Adams believes that even anthropogenic climate change (whether one believes in it or not) is going to become a non-issue, not because of Occasional-Cortex’s Green Nude Eel, but because of something called Generation Four Nuclear Fusion. If you haven’t heard about Generation Four Nuclear Fusion, Adams touts it as a system that’s not only safe, but that also burns up all that dangerous used nuclear material from old-style reactors.

All I know about Generation Four Nuclear is what I hear from Scott Adams, so I can’t tell you any more about it. Perhaps you can tell me more. Adams claims, though, that it will cleanly and safely produce electricity all over the world, rendering climate change hysteria moot.

Of course there’s still stuff in the news. The fire at Notre Dame was a true headline maker. The post-fire stories are interesting too. As best as I can tell, because Notre Dame belongs to the state, not the church, all the usual suspects on the Left are pleading for it to be re-built in modern ecumenical fashion, without all that nasty religious messaging that hangs about the old church. Imagine a multi-cultural Notre Dame, complete with a Muslim prayer complex, a Wiccan room, an LGBTQ workshop, and all the other accouterments of modern faith movements.

What surprised me most was the speed with which the government pronounced that the fire was just a workplace accident. Considering that a 900 year old church went up in flames, you’d think they’d want a little longer to investigate before coming up with a conclusion.

Meanwhile, Pamela Geller offers some different information from those familiar with the restoration work going on at Notre Dame, namely that:

  • The restoration work hadn’t yet gotten to the roof.
  • The experienced team working at Notre Dame was being excessively cautious about the fire risk.
  • The fire started fifty minutes after all workers had clocked out.
  • No employees from the scaffolding company setting things up were on site.
  • There were no electrical sources in the area in which the fire started.

There’s more at Geller’s site if you’re interested.

The conservative groups I follow are unanimous in believing that, even if Islamists started the fire, the French government cannot and will not implicate Muslims because it’s too politically dangerous for Europe’s ruling Leftists to do so.

However, others point out, quite accurately, that the usual Islamist suspects haven’t claimed responsibility, so it may really have been a pure accident. After all, those working on the church have a vested interest in proclaiming their innocence and pointing the finger elsewhere. But again, we cannot expect an honest appraisal from the government because politics will invariably beat out truth. This means that, even if the government telling the truth that it was a workplace accident, at least 50% of the West’s population will think that the French government is lying.

So yes, Notre Dame is newsworthy.

And of course, what’s endlessly newsworthy is the ways, both big and little, in which the Left continuously presses at America’s culture and at reality itself. Borders, transgenderism, feminism, #MeToo, climate, clown car Democrat presidential candidates . . . it’s all there. But blogging about it sometimes gets a little redundant, because I’ve blogged about it all before.

To be honest, I can hold forth forever on these familiar topics, because they always act as a burr under my saddle. But who among you wants to read iterations of the same post over and over? President Trump is just too good at what he does.

Tomorrow, though, I think I’ll blog about Pete Buttegieg. I find him quite threatening, because he’s the gay version of Obama, with the added twist of a military background. Take away the politically correct status and the Ivy League polish, though, and he’s Obama all over: Bland platitudes covering the hard Left politics of a red diaper baby who is, to date, a stunningly unsuccessful politician.

Let’s hope that the American people, having allowed the media to sell them a bill of goods with Obama (“Hey, you too can be part of history by voting for the first black president”), will have wised up and not fall for the same old shtick (“Hey, you too can be part of history by voting for the first openly gay president” — “openly gay” because Buchanan may well have been the first actually gay president).

Anyway, that’s where my thoughts are going. Please chime in with yours.

The post The “no news is good news” open thread appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.