Big Brother Gummint knows best
Clint Eastwood is one of America’s national treasures, on the same scale as James Stewart, John Wayne, Bob Hope, and Frank Sinatra — to mention four other Republicans, of an earlier time.
You may remember Clint Eastwood addressing the empty chair, standing in for Barack Obama, at the 2012 Republican national convention.
So it was a bit of a shock to read down to the bottom of Tunku Varadarajan’s interview (Tunku, Tunku very much) with Mr. Eastwood in the weekend Wall Street Journal, which closes thusly:
As for the domestic political scene, Mr. Eastwood seems disheartened. “The politics has gotten so ornery,” he says, hunching his shoulders in resignation. He approves of “certain things that Trump’s done” but wishes the president would act “in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names. I would personally like for him to not bring himself to that level.”
So far, so good. But then
… he expresses an affinity for another former mayor: “The best thing we could do is just get Mike Bloomberg in there.”
Clint Eastwood was once a mayor himself, of Carmel-by-the-Seat, in 1986. He ran because of the hassles city government threw in his way of starting up a restaurant. One of his first acts in office, Mr. Varadarajan reports,
was to reduce the onerous municipal prohibitions on the public sale of ice cream. More than three decades later, he laments that the Golden State is “like Regulation City right now.” An excess of rules is “making California a place other than a democracy.”
Strange, then, that he would support Michael Bloomberg. Varadarajan does not explore the sentiment; he just leaves it hanging there. Perhaps Dirty Harry supports Bloomberg’s stop and frisk, which reduced crime and saved countless lives — both of innocent victims and the bangers. (Inexcusable, on the other hand, was Bloomberg’s racist shorthand for that policy. Stop and frisk targeted behavior, not race.)
There’s Bloomberg’s non-disclosure agreements, which seem to cover nothing approaching Harvey Weinstein’s alleged depredations. (Progressives will yet make the world safe from dirty jokes.) Or his diss on farmers and factory workers. (Goodbye Wisconsin and Michigan.)
Big brother knows best
“Individually, these stories are bad, syndicated columnist S.E. Cupp writes.
“But Bloomberg’s long history of invasive nanny state policies deserves renewed scrutiny.”
Cupp itemizes Mayor Bloomberg’s big-government crusade against cigarettes, trans fats, sugary sodas, and “black and brown men aged 14 to 24.” She does not mention his war on gun owners but does include this stunner: “breasts.”
In 2012, Bloomberg launched the Latch On NYC initiative, which attempted to coerce breastfeeding in new mothers by limiting access to formula in hospitals, discontinuing the distribution of free infant formula and removing any formula promotional material in hospitals. It also required that nurses document dispensing of formula to new moms, citing “medical reasons” for its necessity.
Ms. Cupp concludes:
Anyone with this much determination to insert himself into the public and private lives of Americans should be treated as dangerous … Whatever the issue and however personal, Michael Bloomberg will always know what’s best for you, whether it’s his business or not.
Blaska’s Bottom Line: Doesn’t sound very libertarian to us.