'And the Winners of This Year's Razzies Are...'
In case you have never heard of the Razzies, they’re prizes handed out at a black tie event the night before the Oscars are bestowed. And unlike the Oscars, which are often awarded for no better reason than that some aging director has never won one before or because a sex symbol of either gender appeared in a movie without makeup or a toupee, the Razzies always go to the most deserving. That’s because they’re in recognition of the worst movies and the worst performances of the previous year.
Some of the people who have won multiple times include Sylvester Stallone, Kevin Costner, Adam Sandler, Demi Moore, Bo Derek, Sharon Stone and Madonna. Frankly, I think the network would get bigger ratings airing the Razzies than the Academy Awards. After all, how many times do we really need to see Meryl Streep on stage, clutching the little gold eunuch to her bosom, and blowing kisses to her various co-stars in the audience?
If the members of the current administration were in a movie, even Stallone and Madonna would be left out in the cold. Right off the bat, these creeps would cop the award for Worst President Ever, Worst Vice-President, Worst Attorney General and Worst Secretary of Health and Human Services. The only real competition would be for Worst Secretary of State, which would be a dog fight between two real dogs, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, and could easily wind up in a tie.
Some people seem to think that too much attention has been paid to Chris Christie and the George Washington Bridge scandal. There have been so many defenses made on his behalf, it’s hard to keep track of them. One of them is that nothing should be allowed to deflect attention from ObamaCare. Then there’s the one that suggests it wasn’t that big a deal. If you don’t care for that, there’s the fact that Christie engaged in a two hour mea culpa session with the press. Finally, we have the always reliable “He took full responsibility.”
Taking them in order, for those who have lost or stand to lose their health insurance once the employer mandates kicks in later this year, nothing short of a nuclear attack is going to distract them. The rest of us, at least those who can walk and chew gum at the same time, can maintain our focus on two scandals simultaneously. After all, with Obama in the White House, we have had plenty of practice, sometimes even managing to stay on top of four or five scandals simultaneously.
Two, it was a pretty big deal. Anytime, a high profile politician finds himself tap-dancing as fast as he can in order to stay ahead of the mud oozing towards his shoes, only a Tibetan monk would have the will power not to stare.
Finally, although Obama has set an unbelievably low standard when it comes to taking responsibility for anything, I do not regard answering questions a major achievement or the firing of major aides as taking responsibility. He was, after all, the person whose lack of judgment placed those bums in positions of authority. If he can’t select his senior staff any better than that, what makes anyone think he’d do a better job of it once he was the nation’s chief executive?
Keep in mind this wasn’t some minor prank. Those punks shut down the busiest bridge in the United States for four consecutive days. If they felt they had to punish Fort Lee’s mayor, Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, for not backing a Republican for governor of New Jersey, they could have settled it in civilized fashion, perhaps challenging him to a trivia contest involving “The Sopranos” or Frank Sinatra’s greatest hits.
Finally, the next time I hear a politician say he’s taking responsibility, I want his next words to be “…and that is why I feel I must in good conscience resign as of noon today.”
Speaking of politicians who should resign, there was a vote in the House the other day on a bill that would have compelled the federal government to alert anyone who had signed up on the ObamaCare website that there had been a security breach and that computer hackers had swiped their personal information, including financial and medical. The Republicans voted 224 ayes, no nays; the Democrats voted 67 for, 122 against.
Target informed some 70 million customers that their computers had been hacked, but 122 Democrats didn’t think the federal government should be at least as honest and forthcoming as a major retailer. And, yet, I continue to hear from pinheads insisting that there’s absolutely no difference between the two parties.
Speaking of which, it would be great if next November and again in 2016, every Republican in America would stop whining about how awful Democrats are long enough to get off their butts and vote for any candidate with an “R” after his name. Granted, they won’t all be great. They won’t even all be conservatives, but each and every one of them will be better than the schmuck they’re running against.
I don’t know why it is so difficult for so many on our side to recognize that in certain states, a Ronald Reagan or Ted Cruz is never going to win an election. But if you sit home because you refuse to vote for those you demean as RINOs, thus allowing a liberal to win, you are aiding and abetting Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And that makes you a far bigger villain than John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Scott Brown or any other Republican on your personal hate list.
However you feel about moderates, unlike Democrats, they are on the right side every once in a while. If you disagree, how do you explain that every single Republican in Congress voted against the Affordable Care Act?
As William F. Buckley once said, “Vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot…who can win.”
So, no matter how noble you think you are, as you sit there, Solomon-like, measuring every Republican like an assayer in those old westerns, testing rocks for gold content, you’re only conning yourself.
The truth is that any politician with an “R” after his or her name is doing far more to keep the barbarians at bay than you with your purity check list, carrying on like some secular Cotton Mather.