Quote of the Day, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Downplays Worries That Her Base Is Revolting edition.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great DNC chair! If you’re a Republican.Read More »
Neutron: Hello again Redstaters, we’re continuing today with our interview of Mr. Kowalski, who is doing his best to stage a comeback at least in terms of talking here at Redstate with some of his friends and probably more of his enemies. We left the conversation with a very short summary of his views of the Tea Party movement, which I promise to come back to before the converation ends, but I had to ask him a few more questions.
Neutron: “Wait a minute, you just said Barack Obama hasn’t been a disappointment? Except to his base? Please explain what you mean.”
Kowalski: “Barack Obama hasn’t surprised me very much at all in terms of the way he’s goverened and especially in terms of the way he’s presented himself. Sure, he’s gone on more golfing trips than GWB and he’s also had a few high-profile events like the recent Nuclear Summit (which was basically an excuse to get everyone out of Washington DC for a day). Essentially he has goverened as I thought he would: a left-leaning professor who came to the University of Chicago by way of the Illinois political machine. I’m not disappointed because if anything, he’s lived up to everything I thought he would be when he was elected, and in that sense there’s nothing surprising. Of course we knew that a lot of the campaign rhetoric was bluster: that’s what campaigns are about. And of course we knew that David Axlerod was going to assume the role in the White House of creating an image of Barack Obama as a change agent, even if that meant distancing the President from the press (who all feel bad because they nominally support him). In reality Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter filtered through Ronald Reagan as a kind of antidote to Reagan, and everything he’s done in that regard hasn’t disappointed me.
Now, if you’re really a leftist, Obama has been a true disappointment. He hasn’t yet issued executive orders calling for the confiscation of legally owned firearms based on the Commerce clause. He hasn’t yet decided that all corporations in the United States should be run by the federal government, and he hasn’t yet decided to give Hugo Chavez unfettered access to the U.S. arsenal. He hasn’t raised taxes on everyone to 80% and and he hasn’t yet determined that the United Nations is the governmental body that is sovereign over the United States in writing. He hasn’t had the Blackwater people pilloried on the National Mall (but John Cusack is still trying), and he hasn’t ejected the pharmaceutical companies from New Jersey. Boeing is still a living, breathing company, and so far, Maureen Dowd is not his Press Secretary, and Noam Chomsky is still toiling away in Cambridge as a tenured professor.
So the only people he’s really been a disappointment to are those on the far Left. In terms of the rest of us, he’s been pretty much as we expected him to be, which is to say that we basically didn’t want him to be President from the get-go, but it didn’t work out that way. We did try.
Neutron: So the President hasn’t disappointed you?
Kowalski: No, his administration has been almost precisely what I thought he would be, so I can’t think of it as a disappointment. He brought in a couple of commies into lower-level positions to satisfy them, he decided to work on making health care a government-run entity, but basically everything he’s done hasn’t been a surprise. Except that he golfs more than GWB, that was surprising. And let’s face it, Cass Sunstein is just too big for his little britches. He writes a lot of stuff that professors love, but basically it’s always the same thing and Sunstein is kind of Obama’s Napoleon. “The Jew is Using the Black as Muscle” and all that from the Illinois Nazis and the Blues Brothers, except that Sunstein is really a tool, and since the moment his name was associated with the Office of Information Management or whatever he’s attached to, people have realized what a waste it was to bring him to Washington. He was OK as a constitutional law scholar but now he’s trying to deliberately establish a regime under which people are duped and subverted by government agents, so that they can work for Social Welfare.
He should have stuck to being a half-rate Con. Law professor.
Neutron: What about guns? That’s a rich subject. You’re a 2nd Amendment supporter and you probably have a lot of powerful feelings about it. Guns are dangerous, you know.
Kowalski: Yes, I do and I understand very well that they’re dangerous, and really I’m proud of what’s happened in the United States in the past ten years, which in my view has been a history of rectifying a lot of wrongs, with the help of dedicated professionals and activists both at the NRA and in the states, all the way through police officers and attorneys general, not to mention the Supreme Court. Most of it has been to reaffirm the proposition that people aren’t crazy, that citizens of the United States in fact have the Constitutional rights they were promised at the Founding and that were essential to the establishment of this country. Nobody is mandating that people buy a weapon but on the other hand it’s been very important to establish that they have the right to own one if they so choose. Massachusetts is the historic home of the Minutemen and it’s good to see that more people in the United States are responsibly exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I found through the course of my life that a lot of people who didn’t like them as a matter of principle were incorrect because a lot of the other things they own and use every day are much more dangerous. Gasoline is much more dangerous than a handgun, and anyone can buy it. Most of the tools people use, if used incorrectly, are more dangerous than guns, but anyone can go to a Home Depot or a Lowe’s and buy them, too. A baseball bat is a dangerous weapon, and so is a sledgehammer. And I was personally ashamed of how badly my thinking had been prejudiced by spending too much time listening to anti-gun propagandists, after having been the Captain of my own high school’s rifle team, where our biggest injury in three years was a sprained ankle, and we were the only gender-integrated varsity sport at the school (and undefeated). I had a bit of culture shock moving to where I live from Chicago, where anyone who has a penknife is a suspect, and I realized that all my thinking for several years had been wrong: what you want is an armed and responsible citizenry, people who understand and comprehend what they are doing, not the absence of that. And you certainly don’t want to elect people who will make laws against them based on prejudiced views of what constitutes “safety.” Every adult in this country should have the option to own firearms — and as many as they want, for whatever reasons they want, as long as they’re not criminals, period. That applies to liberals, too, and I wouldn’t take their rights away either.
Neutron: OK well that’s a pretty explicit statement, so what do you think about homosexuals?
Kowalski: Hahaha. We all knew that one was coming, didn’t we? It’s kind of like following up a question about drugs with a question about mayhem and how you feel about them as a form of public discourse. The answer to that question is personally not very long but when connected to other conversations I’ve had, it can stretch a while longer. My basic answer is that homosexuals don’t bother me all that much, except when they do, which I’m pretty sure they think about me also, but it’s a long conversation. I also don’t think there is ever going to be anything other than a low-level tension between homos and heteros regardless of how tolerant society becomes…I could be wrong about that but I don’t think so, and I realize it’s a deliberately provocative statement.