Bruce Springsteen Gives Advice To Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum, onetime war-hater, full time Bush-hater, and liberal douchebag par excellence, speaks about the Libyan War, and Barack Obama in Mother Jones:

If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust him, and I still do...

Bruce Springsteen, onetime defender of the middle class, full-time Democratic fund raiser, and liberal douchebag par excellence has advice to his fellow liberal traveler:

"Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed.”

Drum won't listen to the onetime "Boss", however. It might require him to actually, you know...think. Which, based on the above, is something he he vowing, in print, not to do. If he ever did in the first place...

(More on Springsteen's liberal douchbaggery here, and here. And when it comes to tax time, Springsteen claims, no, he's not a millionaire rock star, he's a mere New Jersey farmer, to get a 95% reduction on the property tax on some 200 spare acres of land he happens to possess...

Chris Christie, of course, had the best revenge: after Bruce refused to play at his inauguration, Christie hired a Springsteen cover band instead. No one missed him.)

Sarah Silverman On The Uses Of Blatant Antisemitism

Foul-mouthed comedienne Sarah Silverman was on Piers Morgan the other night, and made an interesting claim - that Jews like the occasional anti-Semitic rant because it proves their paranoia is justified:

“I mean, if there’s one thing we should realize is that it’s in general the world hates Jews, you know....” [click the link above for the video, watch Piers Morgan profess shock at this comment]

Silverman insisted it was true and alluded to Mel Gibson’s 2006 anti-Semitic rant during at a DUI arrest in Malibu, Calif. She explained instances like that give Jews an opportunity to show anti-Semitism is real and not just an abstract invention.

"I mean, I think when stuff like Mel Gibson, when he said you know, like Jewish stuff or anything like that — there is outrage,” Silverman said. “But I think secretly there’s nobody that likes blatant anti-Semitism more than Jews because it’s something you can point to. It’s not just a gas in the air anymore, you know.

I think what Sarah is trying to say is that it is occasionally satisfying when the mask falls off and the world gets to see the truth about the width and depth of antisemitism. It acts as a justification for their concerns, and gives them a weapon to use against those who claim that folks aren't really anti-semitic anymore, they're simply anti-Zionist. Right.

I suppose it is similar to the way conservatives feel when folks like Van Jones and Anita Dunn openly display their blatant anti-American and pro-totalitarian views - it acts as vindication for the claims of the Right, and puts lie to the counter-claims that the cries of impending socialism are just Tea Party fantasies.

Which begs the question, of course: Do politically correct speech codes actually harm the eradication of hatreds, since it forces such speech underground, among like-minded people, who discuss their prejudices freely with each other but mask it "on the outside"? And does this then make it harder to expose the haters (of all stripes), allowing them either quietly to spread their twisted ethos, or to act it out in a potentially tragic way?

The question is rhetorical, I suppose. But let's give cheers to Sarah Silverman for talking about the scourge of antisemitism on national television, and let's appreciate the fact that she is every Jewish boy's secret fantasy: The sweet, innocent-looking Jewish girl next door, who just happens to have the mind - and foul mouth - of an adult film starlet.

Now if she would only disown that Obama fellow....well, regardless, I still think Rule 5 applies here:

Tea Partier Rankles Dumb-As-Dirt Democrat

Rand Paul vs. Harry Reid? Really? No promoter would even take that bout, as one-sided as it is. But Reid was elected by his peers in the majority as their leader, so he's gotta stand up front and take the punches. And right now, he's reeling among the ropes, ducking and cringing from every head-bob and feint thrown by....Rand Paul (Tea Party-Ky.).

Paul is a bit displeased that Obama consulted the Europeans, NATO, the UN, and even the freakin' Arab League before bombing Libya, causally leaving out one key body in his deliberations - Congress, which the constitution requires must be consulted. And he's making it known:

On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”

To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

Harry never saw it coming. Confused and staggering about blindly, groping for purchase anywhere he can, he finally grabs the timekeeper's hammer and gives himself 90 seconds of relief by ringing the bell:

GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.

Republicans speculate that Reid was already irked, sensing disarray in his caucus over the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to block carbon regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Paul’s proposal simply added fuel to the docket fire. Senate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 are quite sensitive to tricky amendment votes, and Reid, some say, may have simply thrown up his hands. For Democrats, a weekend to sort things things out is more appealing than a tense Friday in the cloakroom.

It's all falling about for Reid's thin Senate majority. Most of these political animals still have some sort of a sense of smell, and they are catching the scent of the Tea that America is brewing. Any Democrat with half a brain (which excludes Schumer, Levin, Reid, Lautenberg, and many others) knows that Obama and Reid are leading them off a cliff, and many of them are starting to get nervous, and looking for places to compromise, if only to save their own sorry asses in 2012. Given Obama's blundering, and Reid's ability to be outworked, out-thought, and outfought by a rookie Senator, well...I can't help by believe many Democrats are not exactly of a mind to goose-step behind leadership right now.

Especially when, confronted by a Tea Partier with a plan, said leadership cuts and runs...and runs...