And as Nathan Hale said, "All Things Considered, I'd Rather Be in Schnecksville"

Brought to my attention by Jonah Goldberg:

For the record, Schnecksville, an actual place, is about 40 miles away from Valley Forge, about 100 miles away from Gettysburg, and about 50 miles away from where Washington crossed the Delaware.

Well, he's not running for American History Professor, I guess.

Meanwhile, President Wheezy and Bone Spurs were tied at the EBO site last week. This week, Wheezy has opened up a slight lead:

Warning: Google hit counts are bogus.

Candidate EBO Win
Hit Count
Joe Biden 45.0% +0.5% 500,000 +93,000
Donald Trump 44.0% -0.5% 2,210,000 +310,000
Robert Kennedy Jr 3.6% +0.1% 45,600 +3,400
Michelle Obama 2.5% +0.3% 266,000 +2,000
Kamala Harris 2.0% -0.1% 112,000 -8,000
Other 2.9% -0.3% --- ---

Trump's still in a near-unassailable, over 4-to-1 lead in phony hit counts, though.

Also of note:

  • Hey, kids, what time is it? Well, according to Kurt Schlichter, it's Time to Rethink Your Never Trumpism. Ah, finally. Someone to present me with a set of rational arguments why I should, for the first time, vote for Trump.

    You'd think. But no:

    Okay, my Trump-shy friends, it’s time to put aside your fussy principles about how icky Donald Trump is. This is serious, and we need all hands on deck to throw Biden overboard before he gets a whole lot more Americans killed. I get that you don’t like Trump. Let’s agree that he’s icky for the purposes of this discussion. Let’s agree that his tweets are mean, that he’s not a conservative ideologue, that he says dumb things and gets into useless fights, and that he does many other unseemly and annoying things. Let’s agree that this is all true. Let’s concede that in normal times, one might want to forgo supporting a guy like that. But these aren’t normal times.

    So my principles are "fussy". I think Trump is "icky". And later:

    So, this is for you guys who are having difficulty making that leap and backing Trump 2.0. I’m assuming that you are susceptible to reason. Some of you might not be. Let’s face it: A little bit of ego is involved here. There’s a performative aspect to not backing Donald Trump. You dug in against him, and digging yourself out and publicly changing your mind is tough. I get it. But when facts change, choices need to change. And boy, have the facts changed.

    Thanks for that head-shrinking, Kurt.

    So (to summarize), Kurt is accusing me of prissyness ("fussy"), childishness ("icky"), and moral posturing ("ego"/"performative").

    Kurt, this is not an effective way to convince people.

    Other than that, it's just a recycled Flight 93, storm-the-cockpit rant. Trying to scare me into supporting Trump.

    Sorry, Kurt, that's also a non starter.

    Kurt talks a lot about Israel and Gaza. Ukraine is unmentioned.

    Not that it matters, but the Flight 93 crash site is about 200 miles from Schnecksville. I don't know if Trump mentioned that.

  • A more accurate adjective than "icky". And it's supplied by Kevin D. Williamson: Trump’s Toxic Touch. Analyzing Trump's recent announcement of his abortion position:

    The Dobbs decision returned abortion to the states, and if Donald Trump sounds indifferent about how that plays out in the states, it is not because he is indifferent, exactly, much less possessed of “disinterest” as Jamelle Bouie put it with perfect wrongness (subsequently edited away) in the New York Times—it is because he subordinates the abortion issue, like every other issue, to his own narrow self-interest. Trump was, recall, a self-described “pro-choice” Manhattan playboy and reality-television grotesque who made occasional cameos in pornographic films before he decided that he wanted to chase the Republican presidential nomination. As with the Second Amendment, traditional marriage (ho, ho!), and much else, Trump lurches from position to position, precisely as one would expect a man with no moral anchor to do.

    Trump has long been to the left of the longstanding Republican consensus on many issues: abortion, gun control, taxes, entitlements, marriage and family—almost every issue other than immigration, in fact, though even on immigration he has at times been an amnesty supporter and a “path to citizenship” advocate, when he thought it would benefit him. For a different kind of politician, that discongruity might have a moderating effect and provide some basis for seeking broader and deeper political compromises than American politics has produced in recent years. But Donald Trump suffers from a particularly toxic combination of character defects—laziness, stupidity, arrogance, insecurity, and profound personal cowardice—that make such an outcome impossible. 

    Too much? No: Laziness, because Trump’s stand is the one that requires the least work; stupidity, because he doesn’t understand that “Let the states decide” is a dodge that works under Roe but not under Dobbs, when the states are, in fact, deciding; arrogance, because he has good reason to believe this will be enough for the rubes who are going to support him no matter what; insecurity, because a better kind of man (with a lead in the polls) might do some good by making the case forthrightly, but Trump is an inferior kind of man and knows it; profound personal cowardice, because Trump fears losing something he wants more than he fears being on the wrong side of a question when wrong equates to millions of dead children.

    See, Kurt, it's a little bit more serious than just finding DJT to be "icky".

    (By the way, KDW's Jamelle Bouie aside reflects the NYT's stealth-editing his print-edition words:

    Trump’s fundamental disinterest in the truth value of his words is the only context that matters…

    into the online:

    Trump’s fundamental lack of interest in the truth value of his words is the only context that matters…

    This is the sort of thing that KDW views with minor contempt.

  • Oh, and by the way… Steven Greenhut has the standard libertarian take on "disinformation" at Reason: Combat Disinformation With Better Norms, Not More Laws. Setting a bad example:

    In a typically unhinged social-media post last month, Donald Trump expressed the desire to jail former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.) and the members of the select congressional committee investigating the January 6 riot or insurrection or peaceful demonstration or FBI false-flag operation (pick your narrative). It's one in a long series of posts in which the former president and 2024 GOP nominee has touted tactics usually reserved for third-world strongmen.

    More recently, the judge in the case involving Trump's hush-money payments to adult-actress Stormy Daniels slapped a gag order on him "after repeatedly targeting the judge's daughter in social media posts," per USA Today. Not long ago, Trump said he would tell Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO member countries that don't pay their bills. And, of course, he continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen.

    And I hear you asking: Did Trump really …? Sure did:

    Hey, Kurt? Greenhut could have called this "icky", but he chose a more accurate adjective: "unhinged".

  • We used to rail against the "Imperial Presidency". But now… … it's just "the presidency". Andy Kessler at the WSJ: The Presidency, I’m Against It. He advocates a path for a Trump presidency that almost certainly will not be taken:

    Expectations for a second Trump term include mass deportations, threats against allies, and huge tariffs on Chinese products. But what will be Mr. Trump’s legacy? Let’s face it, someone who splashes his name on tall buildings across the country cares about legacy. How does Mr. Trump change his legacy from authoritarian blowhard to transformative president? Simple. Go rogue. Do something no one ever thought he would do. Like Nixon going to China. Or “Bedtime for Bonzo” Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan becoming a free-market, Soviet-busting genius.

    How? Reduce the power of the executive branch. Mr. Trump told Sean Hannity he plans to be a dictator for only a day. Fine, close the border, end DEI, get NATO partners to pay, cancel Mr. Biden’s executive orders, and reverse his industrial strategies, er, policies. But then pull the ladder up behind you so no future president can repeat the Biden administration’s power grabs.

    That would be neat.

  • Here's how to do it right, Kurt. Power Line hosts Daniel B. Klein, writing on Libertarians and Civic Virtue.

    An interview between two libertarians provides an opportunity to think about how libertarians need to raise their game. David Boaz of the Cato Institute is interviewed by Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine. Among other things, they discuss the 2024 presidential election. The conversation exemplifies a failure in civic virtue among some libertarians.

    I say ‘some’ libertarians, because others are more like Milton Friedman. In a 2005 interview, Friedman said: “I always say I am Republican with a capital ‘R’ and libertarian with a small ‘l’.”

    More than 50 years earlier, in 1953, Milton Friedman wrote: “I see no objection to his [the economist’s] saying, ‘In my opinion…A is the best policy to achieve our agreed objectives. However, if you do not like A for political or other reasons, B is the next best policy,’ and so forth.”

    That is, Friedman urges the classical liberal to be comfortable saying, “I favor classical liberalism but in a choice between two less-good options, I think that B is the one that is less less-good.”

    If the choice between two less-good options is a salient and important choice for people at large, civic virtue calls on one who pronounces on public issues to speak to that choice—plainly, calmly, and fairly, like Milton Friedman. I agree with Friedman that the Republicans are the lesser evil, and I don’t think Donald Trump is an exception.

    It's an argument Klein puts forth with respect to his audience. I'm not all-the-way convinced, but he puts together a rational case, not one based on name-calling and fear.