Some quick Drudge Flip Thoughts

Posted: December 16, 2019 by datechguy in Uncategorized

The Drudge’s Report’s apparent swing to NeverTrump and the subsequent drop in pageviews is generating a lot of pixels but it’s ignoring a couple of important points.

  1. If Drudge decided to flip on Trump that’s his business, people have the right to be wrong.
  2. If Drudge sold, that’s also his business. He’s been at it for 20+ years and if he wants to cash in and enjoy life, again it’s his business. He doesn’t owe me or anyone else anything.
  3. I’ve never met Drudge and have no idea what his actual ideological beliefs are. It could very well be that his promotion of conservatism/libertarianism was all about finding a market need and filling it, it’s also possible that he thought that turning on Trump and conservatives might have been a market based move where he guessed wrong. I simply don’t know and it’s likely neither do you.
  4. Even if Drudge loses half his readership 50% of an ungodly number is still an ungodly number. He or whoever now owns the site will make out fine.
  5. That being said you can never assume remaining on top. Remember when Drudge was starting out AOL & IE owned the internet.
  6. Now you understand why the left has been so adamant in preventing people of the right from buying money-losers like Newsweek. There is nothing like flipping a well known but unprofitable brand to make a splash and they are determined to do so.
  7. If there was ever proof that Glenn Reynolds plan of buying Women’s Magazines and staffing them with conservatives is a great idea, this is it.

By John Ruberry

Here’s a list of great flops in recent times. Feel free to add your own in the comments section.

Here we go.

Trump impeachment.
Battlefield Earth movie.
The XFL. (Yes, a revival is planned.)
Jussie Smollett’s hate crime.
Joe Walsh’s Republican primary challenge against Trump, as well as those of William Weld and Mark Sanford.
New Coke.
Cop Rock TV show.
Watermelon-flavored Oreos.
Heaven’s Gate movie.
Bernie Madoff.
Jar Jar Binks.
The Cleveland Browns firing Bill Belichick.
ESPN becoming woke.
Theresa May’s call for a snap parliamentary election in 2017.
Cheetos lip balm.
Paris Hilton.
The Big Ten conference inviting Rutgers to join.
Anything related to Anna Nicole Smith.
Mars Needs Moms movie.
Manimal TV show.
Jeremy Corbin’s term as head of the Labour Party.
Pontiac Aztek.
The San Diego Chargers move to Los Angeles.
Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign, “I was born to be in it.”
Google Glass.
CNN’s decision to become the impeachment network.
Rosie O’Donnell on The View.
Michael Avenatti’s presidential run.
Enron.
Motorola Rokr phone. (I was given one of these by my employer at the time. It was truly a dreadful device.)
Heinz purple ketchup.

Now some of these debacles can also double as hoaxes, such as the “racist assault on Smollett. And of course the impeachment of Trump, which of course is stumbling along despite the lack of evidence that a crime was committed.

Witch-hunter in chief in the House, Adam Schiff, dabbles in screenplay writing. Perhaps a Schiff-scripted movie might make it on a future list.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

When I started writing this post is was going to be with the following premise: While it is a wise political move to put pressure on swing state Trump district Democrats to suggest that voting for impeachment will be against their political health, the entire premise of that argument is wrong because they were in a no-win situation.

If they vote for impeachment of course they anger voters in their Trump supporting districts who think it’s a sham or might be enjoying their best economic situation in a decade and thus risk their seat in a general election but if they oppose impeachment and embarrass the Democrat party, they are sure to draw a successful primary challenge not only because a 1st term member of congress is as a rule vulnerable but the ANTIFA loving Trump hating fanatics are frankly the most motivated of Democrat voters and such folks would likely draw huge war chest to destroy them.

Moreover that vote would not endear you to the GOP who will simply argue that being part of Pelosi’s majority enabled the whole crooked impeachment business anyway.

So in my mind while you might make some hay out of such pressure I thought it wasn’t likely to work because there was no upside for a Democrat in such a situation so such Democrats might as well stand pat.

Well apparently there is a third option that frankly I hadn’t thought of but Democrat congress Jeff Van Drew did:

Impeachment is already backfiring on the Democrats even before the full House votes on two articles of impeachment. A Democratic member of Congress is preparing to switch parties, joining Republicans amid the Democrat-led impeachment effort that has put dozens of moderate Democrats in a tough position with their Trump-supporting constituents. 

Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey has been in talks with top advisors for President Trump, according to The New York Times. Mr. Van Drew is concerned about losing his seat in the Democratic primary or in the 2020 general election. Van Drew’s district is a traditionally Republican district that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. 

While there is a value in having a sitting Democrat vote against impeachment, there is a greater value for the GOP for a congressman to switch parties over the vote. It’s true that the Democrats would go all in to defeat him but given that activists would primary him and punish him for it anyway it a wise political move.

Suddenly instead of the GOP trying to beat him no matter how he votes and ad after add linking him to the squad, he suddenly becomes a rock star of the party. Money will pour in. The party in general and the White House in particular will go all in to protect and support him. I’d be shocked if Trump didn’t turn up himself to campaign for him in his district. Furthermore as very few new GOP congressmen were elected in the house last time around, if he wins re-election he’ll have two years seniority over any GOP candidate who wins a seat on the President’s coattails in 2020.

I must confess I didn’t anticipate this move. It will be a shock to the Democrat political system , and if others Democrats on the fence realize that this is likely their best chance on re-election Van Drew might not be alone.

Then it would become an earthquake!

Exit question: How much do you think the British Election results had on his decision.

Or he can try to

by baldilocks

On Virginia, the National Guard, gun-grabbing, and Democrats wish-casting for civil war:

With dozens of Virginia counties declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, some Democratic lawmakers have said the governor should use the National Guard to enforce future gun control legislation — but can he?

Virginia Democrats, who control the legislature and governorship, have proposed several measures, including an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, and a red flag law. In response, 75 counties vowed they will not enforce future gun control legislation. Virginia Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin told the Washington Examiner on Thursday that Gov. Ralph Northam “may have to nationalize [sic] the National Guard to enforce the law” if local authorities refuse to do so themselves.

The president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is the only person who can nationalize [sic] the Guard, but state governors have the latitude to use it to enforce state law, legal experts said.

“Until nationalized [sic],  it’s a creature of the state. So that’s what leads me to believe that, yes, the governor can activate the National Guard to enforce even a state law,” Gary Solis, a military law professor at Georgetown University, told the Washington Examiner.

Note to Rep. McEachin and to Russ Read, the author of this article: ‘nationalize’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Allow me to expand on who commands the National Guard.

The governor of each state is the Commander-in-Chief of his/her state’s National Guard. When a governor wants his state’s national guard to go somewhere within the state and do a thing, he is giving orders to mobilize, not nationalize. And when a president calls a guard unit to active duty, he is activating that unit, not nationalizing it.

(All this talk about “nationalization” makes me think we have a bunch of socialists in government, media, and academia. Nah, that can’t be true … )

People may remember that Guard units have served in many of our overseas conflicts. When they do so, they are on active duty and the POTUS is their CinC. Here’s how that happens.

When a POTUS wants to activate a Guard unit, he requests to do so in writing to the governor. Almost always, the governor says “yes” and the POTUS then becomes the CinC of the Guard unit(s) for the duration of said Guard unit’s active duty period. That’s why it seems to be automatic.

However, I could see Northam saying “no” under these conditions. That’s federalism.

All that said, it’s so cute how members of the Democrat-dominated VA legislature publicly ponder pitting the military against the state’s LEOs and its gun owners — as if they thought that no one was paying attention and they could just blurt out their fantasies in friendly company.

Simply, it’s beyond ridiculous to think that even a small portion of the VA Guard units would carry out orders to make war against their neighbors, especially considering that many of the LEOs who are defying the tyrants in the VA government are probably guardsmen/guardswomen (and reservists) themselves.

We’re watching you and rooting for you, people of Virginia. Don’t lose heart.

UPDATE: Readers are telling me that the Guard chain of command is more complicated than I’ve laid out. I’m looking it over.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on Facebook, Twitter, MeWe, Patreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!