How to create news:
Being a sane human being, I didn’t watch the State of the Union. So I was confused when I read headlines about the president “intimidating” the Supreme Court. And I was floored when I watched the video of the president denouncing the justices, sitting directly before him, and the entire Democrat party rising to its feet in support of that denunciation.
“Classless” was the first word that came to my mind. I’ve observed elsewhere that Barry’s got no class, so while this is above and beyond what I would have expected from him, it seems in line with his character.
But then I remembered something:
To truly appreciate the stakes in Citizens United, one must remember the government’s legal position in the case. Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon’s Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, “Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda”; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office.
So the president’s own lawyers – this oral argument was made by lawyers appointed by Obama – stand before the Supreme Court and argue that a law gives the government the right to ban books because of their political content. The Supreme Court, as one would expect, held that such a law was unconstitutional. And then the president gets on national TV and calls the Supreme Court the enemy of democracy, while the president’s party stands up, surrounding the justices, and applauds this denunciation.
Apollo posted this at 3:09 AM CDT on Thursday, January 28th, 2010 as Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods, CHANGE!, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
Why must you make me want everything you produce:
Jamie posted this at 1:59 PM CDT on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 as Uncategorized
The Democrats’ slow, painful realization that the 2008 election had nothing — nothing! — to do with their ideas and policies has been particularly amusing to watch. As Apollo has noted, President Obama has shown an utter inability to turn people’s affection for him into anything substantive.
John Derbyshire put forward a plausible theory for this phenomenon a few months ago on RadioDerb:
It seems to me that there are certain people to whom, for unfathomable reasons, things happen. We all know, for example, that you can be accident-prone. Barack Obama possesses one of these ineffable attributes. Instead of being accident-prone, he’s award-prone. I mean, he has some indefinable quality that makes people want to reward him. Look at his career: Fulbright Scholarship, President of the Harvard Law Review, Senate seat, convention keynote address, nomination, Presidency — and at each step, if you asked someone why Obama was more deserving than A, B, or C, you’d get a puzzled silence. Obama’s just a guy people want to give things to. Why this is so, is just one of those mysteries about human nature. There are seriously stupid people who get rich; there are beautiful women who can’t get dates; there are people who smoke, drink, and cook every meal in lard, yet who live to be 120; there are gifted writers who are witty, talented, and handsome, full of brilliant insights, who have to eke out a paltry living on obscure conservative websites … It’s all part of the general unfairness built into the world.
[Representative Marion Berry, D-LA] recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.
“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” [snip]
Obama’s the celebrity everyone likes, but won’t buy anything from. Let’s hope he keeps selling.
* Brown’s victory is a pure Rorschach Test: nobody knows anything for sure, but everyone has a theory, which happens to exactly coincide with their own prejudices. (For what it’s worth, I think it was anger at the sleaziness Massachusetts democratic machine, but — again — I’m predisposed toward that). I will say this, though: Brown wasn’t shy about his opposition to Obamacare.
Tom posted this at 1:28 PM CDT on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 as Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods, That's Not Change!
I am affectionately attached to the republican theory. This is the real language of my heart. In candor, [however,] I ought also to add that…I consider its success as yet a problem.
I have so much confidence in the good sense of man, and his qualification for self government…where reason is left free…that I will agree to be stoned as a false prophet if all does not end well in this country.
* Brookhiser, Richard. Alexander Hamilton: American. The Free Press, 1999. p 108
** Weisberger, Bernard A. America Afire. William Morrow, 2000., p 129
I should not have enjoyed this as much as I did. Alas, I’m a giant nerd:
Jamie posted this at 5:42 PM CDT on Monday, January 25th, 2010 as It's Economics - Stupid!
So that conservatives could light up a stogie, pour themselves a glass of Scotch, and watch this:
Apollo posted this at 11:00 PM CDT on Friday, January 22nd, 2010 as Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods
John Edwards, at least getting the first letter correct for the travel destination the American people wish he would choose, has gone to Haiti.
He said he had come with a group of 25 to 30 people, including doctors, and had brought supplies and medicine in an effort to “help in whatever way we can.”
Yes, John, I’m sure that philandering ex-senator lawyers are an enormous help. After this catastrophe, I have no doubt that many Haitians are undersexed and undersued.
Apollo posted this at 10:10 PM CDT on Friday, January 22nd, 2010 as Buffoon Watch
Nate Silver is a must-read regarding the plight of liberals. I won’t excerpt anything here – it needs to be read in its entirety.
Some time this summer – I don’t feel like looking up the link – I pointed out that it was impressive how much political capital Obama had spent on his stupid stimulus. It was a bill that any thinking person knew wouldn’t work, it pissed off a lot of people, and it showed Obama’s campaign rhetoric about controlling spending to be exactly what it was – a bald-faced lie. In a matter of weeks after assuming office, he had ruined his image as post-partisan reformer and had become the sort of throw-more-money-at-the-problem liberal we haven’t elected since the 70s.
Think back to the Republican high-tide after the 2004 election, and the ensuing disappointment. Bush had enacted most – all? – of his 2000 campaign agenda during his first term. The most he promised in his second term was Social Security reform, but even with 55 Republican senators not many of us held out hope of that. His majority was squandered, but at then end of those last four years we had two new Supreme Court justices (one superb, one above-average, and both reliably conservative) that significantly shifted the balance of the Court, we were wrapping up things in Iraq, and we were safe at home. In very round-about, often painful ways, George Bush left us with an awful lot of what we wanted from him.
Now look at where liberals were after the last election. Except for FDR and LBJ, Obama won a larger percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat since Jackson(!). They had 59 senators (the last time Republicans won 59 senators: the 1920 election) and enough squishy Republicans that a filibuster was a remote possibility. They had a large House majority (larger than any Republican majority since the 1928 elections). They had a confirmed San Fransisco liberal as Speaker, and plainly she was the driving force on Capitol Hill.
And what, pray tell, has that amazing alignment of the stars produced for them? Porkulus, a mediocre Supreme Court justice (who barely moved the Court, if at all, to the left), and a few very minor victories (gays covered by hate crimes laws; goofy but toothless equal pay law). No gays in the military or closing of Guantanamo (either of which could have been done by executive order), an increase of American soldiers in Afghanistan, an utter catastrophe on health care reform, and a Republican in Ted Kennedy’s seat.
The way Republicans squandered their 2004 majority was frustrating for conservatives. But I don’t think it’s anywhere near what liberals are feeling right about now.
P.S. Liberals also get to be in the same party as Arlen Specter. Specter’s loss to Toomey this November will be one of the great moments in the recent history of the republic; he is a snake, and the sooner he slithers off the national stage, the better. In the mean time, I’m just glad he’s in no way associated with me.
P.P.S. I gave a good, long chuckle after reading this. Add it to the list of things liberals presumed Obama would accomplish, but that he hasn’t.
I’m sure Marc Thiessen was a good speechwriter, but if this is representative of his tv skills, it’s a shame the Bush administration didn’t use him more publicly.
It is utterly beyond me why some New York publication has chosen to publish a blog which consists of an unattractive women being catty about the hottest woman on American television. Perhaps I’m not the target demographic? It is also beyond me why whoever puts the photos on the NYTimes website didn’t notice that they’d stretched said hottest woman horizontally.
I thought real women had curves, and the scrawny chicks were the ones we were supposed to make fun of. Or am I a decade behind there, and we’re back to making fun of fat chicks? Whatever; I have a hard time keeping up with these sorts of things. But if there are any notions of fashion or beauty that deny that Christina Hendricks was a complete knockout in that dress, they’re wrong.
I mean that un-ironically:
“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate.
I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”
That’s very good news indeed.
Our toast: “To the Constitution of the United States: fear and consternation to its enemies; courage and wisdom to its friends; and DOWN WITH OBAMACARE!”
If you had told me a year ago that on the 365th day of the Obama presidency, a Republican would win Ted Kennedy’s seat in a campaign hinging on Obama’s signature issue, I would have told you that your storyline was not believable.
Wow. Wow wow wow. Three cheers for the voters of Massachusetts!
Unsatisfied with changing the rules regarding US Senate vacancies — for the second time in five years — Massachusetts democrats have a new plan to protect their complete dominion over us proles their constituents’ interest.
Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.
“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”
Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.
Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.
In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Remember how libertarians like me were called crazy when we were worried about the abuse of power by the government in the persuit of terrorism.
Jamie posted this at 10:02 AM CDT on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 as Liberty and/or Security