Redstate

I'm guessing because Commentary's website probably frowns...

By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Kneel Before Zod | The Best Democratic Primary EVER — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

...on its writers using the phrase "Spitzer-level hookers" in an article, even when it's appropriate.

And is it ever appropriate, right now! John's article is in response to the Online Left's (exemplified by Matthew Yglesias) increasingly-panicky wish that the super-delegates would show up and make the bad woman stop:

Yes. Sure. Because politicians with the most valuable votes in America are just going to choose up sides and not spend three months being courted and feted and promised. They are going to forswear having their feet kissed, their backs massaged, their views requested, their wants fulfilled, their needs anticipated. They are going to throw their vote away rather than milk it for all it’s worth.

It’s time for people like Yglesias and other Democrats to grow up and get this straight. The point here is: A thousand or so people are going to decide this primary. It behooves those people to have this go on as long as possible, because that is how they are going to get the most goodies. Maybe this is what Hillary truly understands.

(Via Glenn Reynolds)

Read on while I go get out my copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Bob Heinlein had a nice bit in there that suits my needs.

Ah, here it is:

"Wyoh, you look like slot-machine sheila waiting for action."

"Why, you drecklish choom! Do I look like slot-machine prices? Tourist!"

"Don't jump salty, beautiful. Name a gift. Then speak my name. If it's bread-and-honey, I own a hive."

For those needing a translation, "Now we're just haggling over the price" will do, once you subtract the negative connotations from the punchline. It's not true for all of them, of course; or, more accurately, each individual super-delegate is going to be a specific combination of needs, wants, prices, and moral limits that have to be contemplated by anybody trying to offer a... well, "bribe" is such a harsh word. "Consideration" works better. There's no real way to stampede them as a mass group, and those thinking about trying should contemplate that the per-unit price of remaining votes goes up every time that one or another super-delegate finally commits. Of course, past a certain point (one candidate acquires a simple majority) the price abruptly drops*, but that's why politics is so exciting, no?

But that's not even the best part! Do you know what the best part is?

The best part is that, unlike normal civic corruption, I'm not stuck with paying for any of this. This will all get funded out from either campaign funds (Obama) or individual accounts (Clinton) - and I've given neither a dime. The people who have supported both candidates, on the other hand? Yeah, it looks like it's going to go straight to fueling some petty-Congressman's desire to recreate that scene from Caligula, only this time with cheerleaders.

For any of you personally offended by the thought of your hard-earned money going to bribes for your self-appointed betters, I can only say: deal with it. In fact, go donate again. So what if your kid needs braces? He's not real, and neither are you. At least, that's your Party's take on the subject.

Lovely day outside, isn't it?

Moe Lane

*No, not to zero. The second, trickier half of bribing somebody is making sure that he or she stays bought. There's some renegotiation going on even as we speak.