Open post

Sunday Was a Very Bad Day For the “Steins”

Today’s Campaign Update

(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

  • It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. – Man, you know you’re having a bad day when the company with your name on it, the company you personally founded, comes to you and says “you’re fired!”  But that’s exactly what happened to producer of mediocre films and all-around high Hollywood muckety-muck Harvey Weinstein on Sunday, as the Weinstein Company’s board of directors, including his own brother, unanimously voted to can him.  That’s a really bad day.
  • It’s important to note that the Weinstein Company’s board of directors did not fire Weinstein because they found out about their CEO’s serial abuse of women.  They fired him because the rest of us found out about it.  Big difference.
  • In case you’re feeling all warm and fuzzy with the fake journalists and fake editors who infest the NYTimes for running the story that brought Weinstein down, well, don’t.  Writing in The Wrap, former Times reporter Sharon Waxman details how she had this story nailed in…wait for it…2004, but that, thanks to immense pressure put on the Times by Weinstein and actors Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, the fake editors at the fake newspaper gutted her story of all reference to the high muckety-muck’s abuse of women and buried the remainder of her story in bowels of the Culture section.
  • Much like many of his own productions, there are no good guys in this particular film.  No intrepid journalists exposing corruption, no valiant actors or actresses doing the right thing at risk of their own personal careers, no principled politicians who refuse to take money from a man they know to be a woman abuser.  No socially-redeeming characters here at all.
  • Speaking of “steins”, California Senator Dianne Feinstein (who was happy to take money from Harvey Weinstein), right in the middle of her latest effort to ban gun ownership in America, openly admitted in an interview on Face The Nation on Sunday that there is no law, either on the books or that she could pass, that would have stopped the Las Vegas gunman:  “No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” she told host John Dickerson.  Well, duh.
  • But of course, that did not stop the gun-grabbing Senator from California from going ahead and talking about how she has all sorts of ideas on gun laws, which she did not specify, that would “make things safer.”  The next logical question for any real journalist would be “Can you be specific about what those ideas are, Senator?”  But Ms. Feinstein is a Democrat, and thus exempt from the asking of any follow-up questions that might reveal the emptiness of her ideas.
  • So she was just allowed to ramble on about how the question of “bump stocks” requires a bill – which she just happens to have in-hand – and can’t be resolved via a regulatory review by the BATFE, which ruled the things to be legal in 2010.  Which, of course, may or may not be true, and we won’t know until the agency has performed its regulatory review.  Sen. Feinstein at one point stated that “Regulations aren’t going to do it. We need a law.  It can’t be changed by another president. Right now we’re seeing one president change actions of a – of a president that came before him, and that would happen in this area.”
  • That statement doesn’t really make sense and seems self-contradictory, but the Senator seems to be claiming there that BATFE in the Trump Administration cannot reverse a regulatory ruling made during the Barack Obama Administration.  This is abject nonsense.  As the Trump Administration has already shown in literally hundreds of instances already, federal agencies can indeed reverse or modify regulatory rulings made years earlier, as long as they have the legal justification for doing so.  We won’t know if BATFE can find a legal hook for reversing its earlier approval of the bump stock toy until the regulatory review has been performed.  This is how our government works.
  • The reality with Sen. Feinstein is that she wants to do a bill for the sake of doing a bill, so that she can take credit for “doing something”, even if it is, as a practical matter, meaningless.  Because making futile gestures in the name of “doing something” so they can take political credit is what Democrats do.

Just another day in Democrat gun-grabbing America.

That is all.

Scroll to top