National Review's Ed Whelan sometimes sits and thinks, and sometimes he just sits, yet at other times he sits and thinks and then decides to defend the defenseless against the violent oppressions of elitist liberalism which, as we know, pretty much rules all.
Today, for instance, Whelan shields the pitiably shy, reserved Antonin Scalia from that notorious rabble-rouser and pamphleteering polemicist, E.J. Dionne, who has suggested with all the verbal brutality of an Amish prayer breakfast that Mr. Scalia should--oh dear, smelling salts please--resign. You can of course read Whelan's full and noble counteroffensive, like a Cossack to Crimea, here, nonetheless I found this passage irresistibly noteworthy:
[F]ar from "questioning President Obama’s decision" [on immigration-enforcement policy], Scalia is expressly agnostic on it, as language that Dionne quotes but doesn’t grasp ("The president has said that the new program is 'the right thing to do'.... Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so") shows.
My italics.
But yes, sometimes Ed sits and thinks, and sometimes he just sits, and at other times he sits and thinks and ponders new frontiers in gullibility for a readership that mostly just sits.
Comments