On the other hand, Jeff Maurer has some advice for you aspiring pols: "Hippie Punching" is Great Politics.
First, let me be clear: I am not advocating literally punching anyone. “Hippie punching” is a metaphorical term that refers to criticism of the far left, usually by the center left. I oppose political violence in all cases. No hippie should ever be punched, kicked, or body-slammed, nor should their ponytail be fed into a paper shredder should they happen to be sitting next to one, even though that would be objectively funny.
I am, however, advocating the metaphorical “punching” of far-left nut jobs. In fact, I feel that doing so is beneficial to left-wing goals like expanding healthcare, preventing climate change, and making everyone in America trans by 2026. In recent years, many on the left have argued that Democrats need to move left to placate their “base”. I think that’s wrong. In fact, I think that both the empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that Democrats’ best strategy is to punch, piledrive, and triple suplex the fringe left — again, metaphorically — whenever possible.
Jeff is speaking to a target audience of not-too-crazy Democrats, but he's worth reading even if you don't fit that pigeonhole. I suppose if I were preaching to my crowd, it would advocate the metaphorical punching of Trump-sycophants, born-again isolationists, trade protectionists, and Jesse Kelly. And, generally speaking, anyone who thinks that it's a good plan to beat the left-wingers by adopting their worst tactics.
Jeff's article made me a recall a book I read back in 2015 by Frank J. Fleming, titled Punch Your Inner Hippie: Cut Your Hair, Get a Job, and Make America Awesome Again. And the Amazon (paid) link is our Eye Candy du Jour.
Frank is still going strong, dispensing truth and wisdom:
The glass is half full way to look at American elections is that you know that whoever loses is a terrible person who deserves to lose.— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) January 31, 2024
Like everyone else, he has a Substack. Check it out.
Also of note:
Biden just noticed that bit in the Constitution about taking "Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" And said, "Whoa, you mean that's my job?"
James Freeman doesn't quite allege that, but close: Biden and the Border.
It’s an election year and President Joe Biden is now casting himself as a dedicated enforcer of immigration law who would bring order to the border if only Congress would give him more power. There’s a reason voters don’t believe it, and the reason started with his very first day in office.
Instead of negotiating with congressional Republicans to craft a plan to prevent illegal border crossings in return for increasing the legal migration that is at the heart of American vitality, the president instead chose a flurry of partisan activity guaranteed to undermine enforcement, increase lawlessness at the border and inflame the politics. And that’s largely been the story of the last three years.
He's hoping the electorate has a shorter memory than he has.
Other than Joe Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, no one in the past year has disagreed that the “situation” at the southern border is a crisis. Until they were forced to respond by overwhelmingly unfavorable opinion polling about the border last month—even in New Hampshire’s primary—the Biden-Mayorkas see-no-problem pose was the nadir of political cynicism. But now come Donald Trump and his congressional followers, chasing the presumed political rewards of doing absolutely nothing about a serious national problem.
Oklahoma’s very conservative Republican senator, James Lankford, has spent weeks attempting to shape a compromise on illegal migration with Democrats that would permit passage as well of a supplemental bill that has funding for embattled Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. This isn’t the unto-eternity discussion of reforming Social Security. These are national-security matters that needed addressing yesterday by the people elected to prevent the U.S. from being crushed by unsolvable problems.
About a week ago, Mr. Trump told congressional Republicans via his Truth Social platform to oppose any Lankford compromise: “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING.” He elaborated: “A Border Deal now would be another Gift to the Radical Left Democrats. They need it politically.” Mr. Trump ended his input by offering a solution to the current border crisis: “If you want to have a really Secure Border, your ONLY HOPE is to vote for TRUMP2024.” Amid these statements, House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote that the Lankford compromise would be “dead on arrival.”
It takes some serious chutzpah to say, essentially: "Don't even try to improve things, because I need a full-blown crisis as a hot issue in November."
And one more thing about the thing I didn't know was a thing. Charles C. W. Cooke advises The ‘Taylor Swift Psyop’ Freaks Need to Go Outside.
Jesse Watters wants to know if Taylor Swift is a “Pentagon psyop asset.” Jack Posobiec is worried that elites are “gearing up for an operation to use Taylor Swift in the election.” Benny Johnson has concluded that “Taylor Swift is an op.” Laura Loomer is fretting about “the Democrats’ Taylor Swift election interference psyop.” Vivek Ramaswamy believes that the outcome of the Super Bowl has been predetermined. Together, these people have a prime-time cable-news show, 10 million followers on Twitter, intimate access to the likely Republican nominee for president, and absolutely no idea what the country they live in is really like.
As an immigrant, I am accustomed to hearing discussions of the United States that bear no resemblance to America as it actually exists. Turn on a political talk show in England, France, or Germany, and, when the topic turns to the U.S., you’ll be treated to a cartoonized fantasy straight from the uncanny valley — recognizable in outline, but alien in every key detail. And so it is with the MAGA grifter class, which, despite its purported hatred of American progressivism, has at long last become every bit as disconnected from the worldview of the average American as the denizens of Netroots Nations, the Squad, and MSNBC. Populism, by definition, is supposed to be popular. More than a decade into their project, America’s most prominent populists are yet to work that out.
Why? Because they’re totalitarian freaks, that’s why.
CWCC goes on to elaborate that by "totalitarian", he's referring to folks who "unable to draw any distinction between the political and everything else."
Yeah, punch those guys. Metaphorically.