Thursday, June 30, 2011
WaPo Fact-Checks President?!
Yes! It's actually true! The President has been fact-checked and debunked in today's WaPo. The question is: will any of this distract the MSM from nit-picking every statement made by Michele Bachman? Don't count on it. Only 2 ways Bachman gets reduced scrutiny - drops out of the race or her poll numbers plunge giving the MSM a new front-runner to try to de-legitimize.
More Leadership!
Yesterday the President pitched a hissy fit at Congress for not doing what he thinks is a good idea, in this case raising the debt ceiling. He admonished Congress to get to work and show leadership. He used himself as the very model of a modern major general, listing his leadership in getting Bin Laden and getting his daughters to do their homework (no matter their ages). This all on the heels of telling American workers that the key to fixing the economy is for them to "up their game." Leadership!
Today, the President continued his own special brand of leadership and told Republican Senate leaders that he would not meet with them to discuss the debt ceiling because it was not a conversation worth having. It seems the President does not want to hear why the Republicans won't agree with him, and he has zero interest in working out a plan. But why would he, when he can use Leadership to throw tantrums to get what he wants. See, one tantrum brings the Republicans calling at his door. A few more might get the Republicans to cave in and agree with him. Leadership!
Also, the President's official paid water-toter, Jay Carney, called the brass at MSNBC and got Halperin indefinitely suspended for calling the President "a dick" earlier today. Halperin's comment was so inappropriate and his apology was so insufficient that our thin-skinned President had to dispatch his goons to extract justice. LEADERSHIP!
Instigating class-warfare and a cringe-worthy raffle to raise money for his campaign round out this week's lesson in Leadership!
Today, the President continued his own special brand of leadership and told Republican Senate leaders that he would not meet with them to discuss the debt ceiling because it was not a conversation worth having. It seems the President does not want to hear why the Republicans won't agree with him, and he has zero interest in working out a plan. But why would he, when he can use Leadership to throw tantrums to get what he wants. See, one tantrum brings the Republicans calling at his door. A few more might get the Republicans to cave in and agree with him. Leadership!
Also, the President's official paid water-toter, Jay Carney, called the brass at MSNBC and got Halperin indefinitely suspended for calling the President "a dick" earlier today. Halperin's comment was so inappropriate and his apology was so insufficient that our thin-skinned President had to dispatch his goons to extract justice. LEADERSHIP!
Instigating class-warfare and a cringe-worthy raffle to raise money for his campaign round out this week's lesson in Leadership!
CA and Taxes
California Governor Jerry Brown has put the final stamp on a law that will force online retailers to collect sales tax from customers. However, there are a few distinct details to this new law that should probably be explained. First, the rules of the game: the US Supreme Court has held (since 1992) that a seller must first have a “physical presence” in the state before it can collect sales tax. California’s new law defines that physical presence in 2 ways: one is by having “affiliates” who refer customers in return for a commission that are located in CA, and the other is by having a “related company” operating in CA. I would think that the first method is pretty clear and probably establishes a presence in a state. The second method seems a bit vague and too open to varying interpretations, so stay tuned for the inevitable lawsuits. I think that the fact that Amazon has not closed their other companies in CA suggests that they believe the latter method to pose legal problems to CA.
The target of this new law is Amazon.com and other big-bore online retailers. CA businesses with actual stores have long complained that online retailers were enjoying a competitive advantage. However, if one looks at, say, Target and Walmart, those stores continue to thrive, despite competing with Amazon nationwide. So, perhaps the claim that government needed to step in to level the playing field is a bit overblown. Also, there is almost zero mention of the numerous wage and hour cases that have been successfully brought against Walmart. So, perhaps protecting Walmart is not actually good for jobs?
The upshot of this new law appears to be that Amazon and other on-line retailers are severing their relationships with their CA affiliates. This means that a number of CA businesses will no longer earn money on commissions from these online retailers. According to the LA Times’ article, the CA affiliates paid a combined $152 million in state income taxes last year. CA hopes to raise $317 million in new taxes. Keep in mind that CA began 2011 with a projected deficitof $26.6 BILLION!!! CA is also reducing the sales tax by 1%, or rather, the 1% tax hike from 2 years ago is expiring and will not be renewed. It may be that if online retailers sever their affiliates and therefore do not have to collect these taxes, CA makes nothing, and if the affiliates leave, CA loses revenue from income tax.
While it’s unclear what the ultimate outcome of this move will be, a few things are clear, beyond the simple reality of CA owning a broken economy. By forcing Amazon et al to start collecting sales tax, CA has reduced the online retailers’ ability to compete in the market. Amazon, for one, has done the calculus and determined that the reduced competitiveness coupled with the commission payouts hurts their profits. In short, Amazon has decided that it’s better to cut the commissions and lose the referrals but retain the ability to compete in the marketplace. This forces the affiliates to make a choice: lose the commissions or move out of CA. It remains to be seen whether people leave CA in droves and reduce the tax base. Jerry Brown is gambling that they won’t. What we are seeing is the direct result on business decisions that taxes and other gov’t regulations have. We are quickly approaching a tipping point where inhospitable conditions for doing business and uncontrolled spending by government will force companies to relocate.
He's Just Saying What We Were All Thinking
Mark Halperin, Editor-at-large for Time, called Obama a "dick" on MSNBC.
He quickly apologized, so I suppose we can all move on. The fact that this happened is not so surprising, given Obama's performance yesterday. That it happened on MSNBC is hilarious, contrary to Halperin's assertion that it was not funny. I wonder what the reaction would be if this had happened on another cable news channel...
He quickly apologized, so I suppose we can all move on. The fact that this happened is not so surprising, given Obama's performance yesterday. That it happened on MSNBC is hilarious, contrary to Halperin's assertion that it was not funny. I wonder what the reaction would be if this had happened on another cable news channel...
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Leadership!
Obama, with all the gravitas of a high school senior on graduation day (yeah, you're wearing tie, but no one's really ready to take you seriously), rolled up his sleeves and gave a really stern talking-to to Congress. It seems Obama is angry. Angry because Congress isn't doing what he wants them to do. Possibly angry because his approval rating continue to dive. When Obama gets angry, look out, because he throws a cool, professorial tantrum.
This is Obama's unique brand of leadership. We haven't seen it before, but that's probably because this is the first time he's really gotten angry. Pay no attention to the fact that this is the first time in his short Presidency (I know, it seems soooo looonnnnggggg) that his polling numbers are falling despite his every politically motivated tactic to raise them. Obama is trying to bring hisanger leadership to bear on Congress to get them to raise the debt ceiling and not go on vacation ('cause, you know, there's work to be done). Why must the debt ceiling increase? Obama wants it to. What happens if it doesn't increase? The consequences will be "unpredictable." While we don't know that the consequences will be bad, we are stuck in a catch 22 here: things that Obama has wanted and ultimately gotten have not turned out to be good, but at the same time, every unpredictable consequence during his presidency has turned out lousy as well. What to do? If you're Obama, you invent a consensus opinion. Let's take a quick look at people who are not part of any consensus Obama pays attention to: Senior White House Lawyers who advise him that the Libya operation violates the WPA; all of his generals involved in the Afghanistan war operation kinetic excercise nebulous mission. You start to get the feeling that Obama is only listening to the folks who tell what he wants to hear. Leadership!
Obama points out that he has been busy...leadershipping on major issues, like Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the Greek Crisis. Afghanistan is a bald-faced political move; against the advice of his generals, Obama sets the return date for troops to happily coincide with elections. The Bin Laden football has been spiked into oblivion. Was it leadership that emerged after dithering for 16 hours over what to do? That was 2 months ago! Is Greece our problem, or rather, is it our most pressing problem at the moment? The only reasonable feat that Obama could claim credit for was that his daughters do their homework early. Of course, they are not protected by the separation of powers.
Obama wants Congress to get to work...but curiously he didn't seem to mention that the Democrat-controlled Senate has not provided a budget for over 2 years, though it is legally obligated to do so. I guess those guys can go on vacation, but the House better stay. Leadership!!!
This is Obama's unique brand of leadership. We haven't seen it before, but that's probably because this is the first time he's really gotten angry. Pay no attention to the fact that this is the first time in his short Presidency (I know, it seems soooo looonnnnggggg) that his polling numbers are falling despite his every politically motivated tactic to raise them. Obama is trying to bring his
Obama points out that he has been busy...leadershipping on major issues, like Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the Greek Crisis. Afghanistan is a bald-faced political move; against the advice of his generals, Obama sets the return date for troops to happily coincide with elections. The Bin Laden football has been spiked into oblivion. Was it leadership that emerged after dithering for 16 hours over what to do? That was 2 months ago! Is Greece our problem, or rather, is it our most pressing problem at the moment? The only reasonable feat that Obama could claim credit for was that his daughters do their homework early. Of course, they are not protected by the separation of powers.
Obama wants Congress to get to work...but curiously he didn't seem to mention that the Democrat-controlled Senate has not provided a budget for over 2 years, though it is legally obligated to do so. I guess those guys can go on vacation, but the House better stay. Leadership!!!
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Wisconsin Wrestling Federation
Over at NRO's The Corner, Christian Schneider supplies us with an up-to-date round-up of the newest details to emerge from the secret cage match between Justices Prosser and Bradley. Bradley has accused Prosser of putting her in a "choke hold" during an argument earlier this month.
There are a few interesting details there, including this description of the main event:
Things seem to be looking better for Prosser, but not for the Wisconsin Supreme court.
There are a few interesting details there, including this description of the main event:
According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.
At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”Further, and more importantly,
To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”
Speculation is abundant as to why Bradley decided to forgo a criminal complaint against Prosser, deciding instead to go to the press ten days after the event. Some say Bradley’s complaint wouldn’t have stood up if given the scrutiny of a criminal investigation. Furthermore, others speculate that if any formal criminal proceedings had moved forward (a restraining-order filing, for instance), Prosser would be afforded evidentiary hearings, testimony, and discovery.
Things seem to be looking better for Prosser, but not for the Wisconsin Supreme court.
It's All Politics, All the Time
Let's say you're the President, and you ran a campaign that, aside from a lot of ridiculous slogans, was in part based on a promise to run the most transparent administration ever. Let's say that you even went so far as to claim that your administration would protect whistleblowers more than any other administration has.
What if, under your watch, an ATF whistleblower came forward with the news that the ATF had just screwed up, and in an operation designed to ensnare illegal guns and gunrunners who were taking these weapons across the US-Mexican border to arm Mexican drug gangs, had just let the guns and the bad guys slip away right under their noses? The answer is that you would fire someone...but who to fire? Well, if you are Obama, do you fire the head of the ATF - the guy in charge of the agency that just made you look bad? Of course not. You fire the whistleblower. And then you hope that no one remembers what you promised a couple of years ago. Although, I would be willing to bet that these guys have taken notice and exception.
But we really shouldn't be surprised that this President forgets what he said in the past when it's politically expedient to do the opposite today.
What if, under your watch, an ATF whistleblower came forward with the news that the ATF had just screwed up, and in an operation designed to ensnare illegal guns and gunrunners who were taking these weapons across the US-Mexican border to arm Mexican drug gangs, had just let the guns and the bad guys slip away right under their noses? The answer is that you would fire someone...but who to fire? Well, if you are Obama, do you fire the head of the ATF - the guy in charge of the agency that just made you look bad? Of course not. You fire the whistleblower. And then you hope that no one remembers what you promised a couple of years ago. Although, I would be willing to bet that these guys have taken notice and exception.
But we really shouldn't be surprised that this President forgets what he said in the past when it's politically expedient to do the opposite today.
What Is Wrong With Stephanopoulos?
Exactly what is wrong with the liberal media.
Stephanopoulos asked Michele Bachman whether the 23 children she served as a foster mother for were ready for the media scrutiny. Clearly this is an attempt to rattle Bachman, and potentially scare her out of the election.
What is fascinating yet unsurprising in this is that Stephanopoulos thinks that Bachman should be concerned with the treatment that the media is about to level at these children, when in fact it should be the media who should be concerned about the backlash that will result from going after kids. We don't even need to explore the double standard that exists with regard to the children of democrats, like Obama's daughters who have been treated exceptionally well by the press, versus, say Palin's children - especially Trig.
Stephanopoulos asked Michele Bachman whether the 23 children she served as a foster mother for were ready for the media scrutiny. Clearly this is an attempt to rattle Bachman, and potentially scare her out of the election.
What is fascinating yet unsurprising in this is that Stephanopoulos thinks that Bachman should be concerned with the treatment that the media is about to level at these children, when in fact it should be the media who should be concerned about the backlash that will result from going after kids. We don't even need to explore the double standard that exists with regard to the children of democrats, like Obama's daughters who have been treated exceptionally well by the press, versus, say Palin's children - especially Trig.
Monday, June 27, 2011
So Close to Being a Federalist, Yet So Far
Only Obama could screw up federalism. Last week while he was busy not being the president and instead raising campaign funds, he proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue best left to the states. We know that Obama loves to lecture and hates to take a stand on important matters, but as often is the case when he decides to wade into issues, he totally muffs it.
Without getting into a discussion on the merits of gay marriage, the fact is that gay marriage is an issue that simply cannot be left to the states. During the last century, many states outlawed interracial marriages. This created a problem, as an interracial couple who were married lawfully in state A could not have their marriage recognized in state B (where such marriage was illegal), at least so thought state B. Ultimately the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required al states to recognize interracial marriages.
So, although through the Court and not through Congress, the issue of whether all states had to recognize interracial marriages was decided at the federal level. While the gay community has not endured the same kind of historical inequality as certain races have in America (well, perhaps the black gay community has), I fail to see how gay marriage presents any differently to the Constitution. In short, how on earth does this issue get decided ultimately at any level other than the federal one?
Obama tried to hide from the issue by channeling his inner Madison and promoting federalism as the answer. Astounding that a President who has tried to expand the role of the federal government beyond many of its previous limits, the main promoter of Obamacare, could have the temerity to suggest that gay marriage is an issue best left to the states.
Of course, because one of the hallmarks of this administration is rushing in and then getting burned by the unintended consequences, if you click on the link at the beginning of this post and scroll down and read the comments left on the TP site, it becomes clear that Obama didn't help his cause out any with this pronouncement.
Without getting into a discussion on the merits of gay marriage, the fact is that gay marriage is an issue that simply cannot be left to the states. During the last century, many states outlawed interracial marriages. This created a problem, as an interracial couple who were married lawfully in state A could not have their marriage recognized in state B (where such marriage was illegal), at least so thought state B. Ultimately the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required al states to recognize interracial marriages.
So, although through the Court and not through Congress, the issue of whether all states had to recognize interracial marriages was decided at the federal level. While the gay community has not endured the same kind of historical inequality as certain races have in America (well, perhaps the black gay community has), I fail to see how gay marriage presents any differently to the Constitution. In short, how on earth does this issue get decided ultimately at any level other than the federal one?
Obama tried to hide from the issue by channeling his inner Madison and promoting federalism as the answer. Astounding that a President who has tried to expand the role of the federal government beyond many of its previous limits, the main promoter of Obamacare, could have the temerity to suggest that gay marriage is an issue best left to the states.
Of course, because one of the hallmarks of this administration is rushing in and then getting burned by the unintended consequences, if you click on the link at the beginning of this post and scroll down and read the comments left on the TP site, it becomes clear that Obama didn't help his cause out any with this pronouncement.
Maybe It's just Not that Big a Deal
On Friday, NY Gov. Cuomo signed into law a same-sex marriage bill. Many New Yorkers went ape-sh*t at the news, and celebrated as if the host of problems facing NY had been solved. We are still waiting to hear whether NY will impose a divorce tax.
However, the folks over at TP could not pass up on an opportunity to take a jab at FOX News. TP finally had the evidence that proves what they have always wanted to believe: FOX News hates gays. See, by not covering the "historic" event of NY recognizing gay marriage with as much zeal and fervor as, say, MSNBC, Fox News has disclosed its institutional dislike of gays.
Perhaps TP has a point - shouldn't the event of the first state to legalize gay marriage be the subject of intense media coverage? That's really big news, right? Except...NY isn't the first state to recognize gay marriage, nor is it the 2nd...or the 3rd, 4th, or 5th. In fact, 19 states plus the District of Columbia either allow gay marriage, recognize gay marriage, or offer a civil union bestowing all or most of the state-level right of marriage to gay couples.
Let me put this another way: 12 astronauts have walked on the moon, the first two being Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Can you name the other ten?
This tells us a lot about where we get our news from. For example, the liberals over at TP like to champion MSNBC for their intense and thorough coverage of NY's gay marriage bill, and MSNBC, knowing its audience, provided that coverage. FOX News is derided as anti-gay because it devoted more time to other news items. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though - instead of every channel running coverage of the same events like OJ's white Bronco driving down the highway, we get a choice in what we want to watch. I would suggest, however, that the ratings for the two news networks tell the ultimate tale of what viewers find to be compelling news stories.
However, the folks over at TP could not pass up on an opportunity to take a jab at FOX News. TP finally had the evidence that proves what they have always wanted to believe: FOX News hates gays. See, by not covering the "historic" event of NY recognizing gay marriage with as much zeal and fervor as, say, MSNBC, Fox News has disclosed its institutional dislike of gays.
Perhaps TP has a point - shouldn't the event of the first state to legalize gay marriage be the subject of intense media coverage? That's really big news, right? Except...NY isn't the first state to recognize gay marriage, nor is it the 2nd...or the 3rd, 4th, or 5th. In fact, 19 states plus the District of Columbia either allow gay marriage, recognize gay marriage, or offer a civil union bestowing all or most of the state-level right of marriage to gay couples.
Let me put this another way: 12 astronauts have walked on the moon, the first two being Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Can you name the other ten?
This tells us a lot about where we get our news from. For example, the liberals over at TP like to champion MSNBC for their intense and thorough coverage of NY's gay marriage bill, and MSNBC, knowing its audience, provided that coverage. FOX News is derided as anti-gay because it devoted more time to other news items. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though - instead of every channel running coverage of the same events like OJ's white Bronco driving down the highway, we get a choice in what we want to watch. I would suggest, however, that the ratings for the two news networks tell the ultimate tale of what viewers find to be compelling news stories.
That's What I've Been Saying
I knew it was too good to last. I knew that sooner or later someone was going to work all of the stories involving Justice Thomas into one singular, concise piece. Randy Barnett over at The Volokh Conspiracy has found that piece and adds a little bit to it. I recommend checking it out. The article even touched on the left's attempts to link Scalia, Alito and Thomas to the dreaded Koch Brothers - the bane of all progressives everywhere. I was hoping to touch on that myself, but I don't think I could add anything that the article doesn't cover.
TP's War on the Supreme Court
As I have covered in previous posts, Think Progress' Ian Millhiser has picked a theme and is running with it. Specifically, as the Obamacare cases wind their way to the Supreme Court, the left has looked into the crystal ball and sees doom. The initial piece of legislation was a 2000+ page mess that was full of liberal compromises, kickbacks, payoffs, and a whole lot of unintended consequences. It is famous for, among other things, putting Republican Scott Brown into the Senate seat long-occupied by Ted Kennedy. It was deemed passed as a reconciliation in the Senate, so as to avoid having an actual vote on it that would have resulted in its defeat. It was mostly unread - created by some democrats, who shut the Republicans out of the drafting process - and arrived with (former) Speaker Nancy Pelosi's grand non-sequitur, "We have to pass it first to see what's in it."
Since those heady days, the 2010 election re-drew the balance of power in congress. Republicans gained a lot of traction on pledges to defund the health care bill. In the meantime, numerous states' attorney's general filed lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of the bill, both on it's face as well as how the bill relates to state legislation that essentially outlaws the health care mandate. The left has realized that is reached too far, too quickly with this bill. Perhaps in another time, when people had jobs, the national debt wasn't flying out of control, we weren't wasting billions of dollars each year in multiple "kinetic military operations," a smaller-scale version of this bill might have made it through. But that's not the point. Rather, the left is going all-out to cling to this monstrosity (in size and nature) of a law. That effort has led them to the strategy of working to de-legitimize the Supreme Court.
First, TP and the NYT, picked up on disgraced former NY Rep Anthony Weiner's ludicrous assertion that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from considering Obamacare cases. The rationale was that Thomas' wife is the President of Liberty Central, a conservative group that has, among other things, advocated for the repeal of Obamacare and asserting that Obamacare is unconstitutional. If we take that issue as its own, it boils down to Justice Thomas' wife has a strong opinion about a national issue, and has made that opinion public; therefore Thomas cannot be impartial in hearing cases involving Obamacare and should recuse himself. Perhaps the left is giving Ginny Thomas to much credit, or Justice Thomas too little credit. Of the 7 Justices who have partners, are we to assume that the other six besides Thomas either always agree with their spouses, or have spouses who hold no opinions? Should the same view be extended to ALL members of government - that domestic tranquility is the ultimate decision-making force? Of course not. Further, in each of the Justice's households, isn't it clear exactly who is the Constitutional expert? The fact that Ginny Thomas' group posted a memo on its website regarding Obamacare does not in any way begin to make the case that Clarence Thomas has forfeited his impartiality.
The left has gone further, trying to link Justice Thomas and his friend Harlan Crow to malfeasance. Specifically - again, debunked in my prior posts on the subject - there is absolutely zero evidence that Crow has influenced Thomas in his capacity as Supreme Court Justice. TP claims that there are 11 cases in which Crow-related groups have filed amicus briefs and Thomas has voted with those positions. That is not an accurate description. 8m of those cases involved CCI and concerned criminal justice issues - nothing related to any business interests of Harlan Crow.
The case made by the left against Justice Thomas is a fabrication and a distortion. What is interesting is that TP and the rest of the left are openly suggesting that Thomas' vote has been bought...only they can't come out and explicitly say that because there isn't any evidence to support it. Instead, the left relies on the lame tactic of saying that these issues should cause great concern, and in the face of such great concern Justice Thomas should probably just resign from the bench. Here's the hook: IF there was any evidence that Justice Thomas - or any Justice - has received benefits in return for voting a particular way on certain issues, it would be a clear criminal matter and he would be impeached! Instead, the left pulls up short of this and throws up ridiculous bills like Rep Murphy's that do nothing substantive and are completely a waste of time for a number of reasons, but are attempts to raise a hue and cry among the uninformed.
Sometimes, where there's smoke, there's nothing but a smoke machine. This is one of those times.
Since those heady days, the 2010 election re-drew the balance of power in congress. Republicans gained a lot of traction on pledges to defund the health care bill. In the meantime, numerous states' attorney's general filed lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of the bill, both on it's face as well as how the bill relates to state legislation that essentially outlaws the health care mandate. The left has realized that is reached too far, too quickly with this bill. Perhaps in another time, when people had jobs, the national debt wasn't flying out of control, we weren't wasting billions of dollars each year in multiple "kinetic military operations," a smaller-scale version of this bill might have made it through. But that's not the point. Rather, the left is going all-out to cling to this monstrosity (in size and nature) of a law. That effort has led them to the strategy of working to de-legitimize the Supreme Court.
First, TP and the NYT, picked up on disgraced former NY Rep Anthony Weiner's ludicrous assertion that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from considering Obamacare cases. The rationale was that Thomas' wife is the President of Liberty Central, a conservative group that has, among other things, advocated for the repeal of Obamacare and asserting that Obamacare is unconstitutional. If we take that issue as its own, it boils down to Justice Thomas' wife has a strong opinion about a national issue, and has made that opinion public; therefore Thomas cannot be impartial in hearing cases involving Obamacare and should recuse himself. Perhaps the left is giving Ginny Thomas to much credit, or Justice Thomas too little credit. Of the 7 Justices who have partners, are we to assume that the other six besides Thomas either always agree with their spouses, or have spouses who hold no opinions? Should the same view be extended to ALL members of government - that domestic tranquility is the ultimate decision-making force? Of course not. Further, in each of the Justice's households, isn't it clear exactly who is the Constitutional expert? The fact that Ginny Thomas' group posted a memo on its website regarding Obamacare does not in any way begin to make the case that Clarence Thomas has forfeited his impartiality.
The left has gone further, trying to link Justice Thomas and his friend Harlan Crow to malfeasance. Specifically - again, debunked in my prior posts on the subject - there is absolutely zero evidence that Crow has influenced Thomas in his capacity as Supreme Court Justice. TP claims that there are 11 cases in which Crow-related groups have filed amicus briefs and Thomas has voted with those positions. That is not an accurate description. 8m of those cases involved CCI and concerned criminal justice issues - nothing related to any business interests of Harlan Crow.
The case made by the left against Justice Thomas is a fabrication and a distortion. What is interesting is that TP and the rest of the left are openly suggesting that Thomas' vote has been bought...only they can't come out and explicitly say that because there isn't any evidence to support it. Instead, the left relies on the lame tactic of saying that these issues should cause great concern, and in the face of such great concern Justice Thomas should probably just resign from the bench. Here's the hook: IF there was any evidence that Justice Thomas - or any Justice - has received benefits in return for voting a particular way on certain issues, it would be a clear criminal matter and he would be impeached! Instead, the left pulls up short of this and throws up ridiculous bills like Rep Murphy's that do nothing substantive and are completely a waste of time for a number of reasons, but are attempts to raise a hue and cry among the uninformed.
Sometimes, where there's smoke, there's nothing but a smoke machine. This is one of those times.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
TP v. Clarence Thomas, Pt 3
Think Progress continues its assault against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Ian Millhiser provides his latest installment of distortions and lies suggesting that Justice Thomas should be removed from the Court. This time he conducts an interview with Rep. Chris Murphy D, CT. It's clear that Murphy has been briefed on Think Progress' views and the articles that Millhiser has written, so we get to see Think Progress' echo chamber in action. Recall from earlier posts that this began with a lame and in-substantive article in the NYT. Now TP has gotten one of the most liberal Congressmen to propose a bill that (according to Murphy's website):
Murphy is simply dancing to Soros' tune here, and promoting the issue near and dear to the liberal cause: undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court as the Obamacare cases get closer. Notice that the timeline that Millhiser and his drones look to dates back over a decade, and yet just now is this issue being brought up. It's pathetic.
As I have stated in the previous posts on this topic, until someone can establish that Justice Thomas has issued decisions that are clear departures from his usual viewpoint with connection to these cases, no one can reasonably believe that Justice Thomas is unethical. This is nothing short of a witch-hunt.
I should also note that Rep. Murphy is also working to raise his profile among democrats; he has announced that he will seek Sen. Lieberman's (who is retiring) seat in 2012. People in CT should be aware that Murphy worked for Chris Dodd and holds Dodd in high esteem. I pray that my friends in the Constitution State do not repeat their previous mistakes and send this guy to the Senate.
Murphy's bill will:
apply the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federal judges, to Supreme Court justices. This would allow the public to access more timely and detailed information when an outside group wants to have a justice participate in a conference, such as the funders of the conference;
require the justices to simply publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case;
require the Court to develop a process for parties to a case before the Court to request a decision from the Court, or a panel of the Court, regarding the potential conflict of interest of a particular Justice.
Murphy is simply dancing to Soros' tune here, and promoting the issue near and dear to the liberal cause: undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court as the Obamacare cases get closer. Notice that the timeline that Millhiser and his drones look to dates back over a decade, and yet just now is this issue being brought up. It's pathetic.
As I have stated in the previous posts on this topic, until someone can establish that Justice Thomas has issued decisions that are clear departures from his usual viewpoint with connection to these cases, no one can reasonably believe that Justice Thomas is unethical. This is nothing short of a witch-hunt.
I should also note that Rep. Murphy is also working to raise his profile among democrats; he has announced that he will seek Sen. Lieberman's (who is retiring) seat in 2012. People in CT should be aware that Murphy worked for Chris Dodd and holds Dodd in high esteem. I pray that my friends in the Constitution State do not repeat their previous mistakes and send this guy to the Senate.
The Dishonest Treatment of Clarence Thomas, Pt2
Think Progress' Ian Millhiser seems to be making it his life's mission to unfairly disparage Justice Thomas and thereby undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court, as it waits for the inevitable arrival of the Obamacare issue on its doorstep. Millhiser has a series of posts about Justice Thomas, and they all contain the same collection of distortions and innuendo. Before I jump into his latest work, I have to address a phenomenon within Millhiser's posts that is telling. He is passing him work off as journalism, but most of his links that would appear to be aimed at supporting his points are simply links to his related articles. Referencing your own previous statements as evidence of their truth is beyond lazy, it's dishonest and suggests problems with the accuracy of the facts. That is a common theme in Millhiser's work, as you will see.
Millhiser now contends that Thomas is in the bag for his friend Harlan Crow because Crow sat on the Board for CCI. Millhiser's sole evidence of this is a 2002 CCI tax return listing the Board members. there is no mention of whether Crow served on CCI's Board at any other time. Also, this was an unpaid position, and there were numerous other members, including Democrat NY General Assemblymen. Crow is alleged to have purchased Thomas' vote because he also once sat on the Board for AEI, whihc in 2001 bestowed a bust of Lincoln to Thomas (supposedly valued at $15,000). Further, Crow is alleged to have supplied $500,000 to Thomas' wife so she could start a Tea Party group. Millhiser cites 8 cases in which CCI filed an Amicus brief and claims that Thomas' vote in support of CCI's position in each of those cases is clear evidence that Thomas has been bought.
Sounds good...except when we look at those cases we see the following facts:
1) In City of Chicago v. Morales, Scalia wort a dissent, and Thomas wrote a dissent that Scalia and Rehnquist joined. So, Thomas hadn't left the reservation...and this case pre-dates Thomas receiving the "gifts" that purportedly bought his vote. FAIL.
2) In PA Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, Thomas wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority. Again, Thomas had the full agreement of the "conservative" wing of the Court. Also, this case was a 1998 case. FAIL.
3) In Dickerson v. US, Thomas joined a dissent. Again, not a "rogue" position, and this case also pre-dated the supposed gifts, as it was from 2000. FAIL.
4) In US v. Knights - a 2001 case, Thomas had clearly been bought when he joined a UNANIMOUS decision. Wow, really onto something here, Millhiser! EPIC FAIL.
5) In US Dept of HUD v. Rucker - a 2002 case, so we know Thomas was on the take, he again proved it by joining the UNANIMOUS DECISION. EPIC FAIL.
6) In CT Dept of Public Safety v. Doe - 2003 - Thomas was part an 8-Justice decision, with the 9th Justice writing a concurring opinion. For all purposes, that's a UNANIMOUS DECISION. EPIC FAIL.
7) In US v. American Library Assn - 2003 - Thomas was part of a plurality decision...but only three judges dissented. So, we have 6 Justices agreeing on the outcome, but some for different reasons than others. FAIL.
8) In Devenpeck v. Alford - 2004 - Thomas joined an 8-Justice UNANIMOUS DECISION. Rehnquist did not take part in this case. EPIC FAIL.
Millhiser doesn't share the make-up of the decisions in these cases, instead choosing to mislead the reader by suggesting that Thomas' votes that happened to fall along the same position that CCI urged in a brief is evidence of the fix being in. Half of these cases were unanimous decisions. Many pre-dated the bust of Lincoln, and ALL of them predated the Tea Party by at least 5 years! None of these cases show Thomas taking a position that is uncharacteristic of his views of the Constitution, or have him departing from views held by other Justices - who have not been subject to similar smears.
Think Progress is walking a dangerous line.
Millhiser now contends that Thomas is in the bag for his friend Harlan Crow because Crow sat on the Board for CCI. Millhiser's sole evidence of this is a 2002 CCI tax return listing the Board members. there is no mention of whether Crow served on CCI's Board at any other time. Also, this was an unpaid position, and there were numerous other members, including Democrat NY General Assemblymen. Crow is alleged to have purchased Thomas' vote because he also once sat on the Board for AEI, whihc in 2001 bestowed a bust of Lincoln to Thomas (supposedly valued at $15,000). Further, Crow is alleged to have supplied $500,000 to Thomas' wife so she could start a Tea Party group. Millhiser cites 8 cases in which CCI filed an Amicus brief and claims that Thomas' vote in support of CCI's position in each of those cases is clear evidence that Thomas has been bought.
Sounds good...except when we look at those cases we see the following facts:
1) In City of Chicago v. Morales, Scalia wort a dissent, and Thomas wrote a dissent that Scalia and Rehnquist joined. So, Thomas hadn't left the reservation...and this case pre-dates Thomas receiving the "gifts" that purportedly bought his vote. FAIL.
2) In PA Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, Thomas wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority. Again, Thomas had the full agreement of the "conservative" wing of the Court. Also, this case was a 1998 case. FAIL.
3) In Dickerson v. US, Thomas joined a dissent. Again, not a "rogue" position, and this case also pre-dated the supposed gifts, as it was from 2000. FAIL.
4) In US v. Knights - a 2001 case, Thomas had clearly been bought when he joined a UNANIMOUS decision. Wow, really onto something here, Millhiser! EPIC FAIL.
5) In US Dept of HUD v. Rucker - a 2002 case, so we know Thomas was on the take, he again proved it by joining the UNANIMOUS DECISION. EPIC FAIL.
6) In CT Dept of Public Safety v. Doe - 2003 - Thomas was part an 8-Justice decision, with the 9th Justice writing a concurring opinion. For all purposes, that's a UNANIMOUS DECISION. EPIC FAIL.
7) In US v. American Library Assn - 2003 - Thomas was part of a plurality decision...but only three judges dissented. So, we have 6 Justices agreeing on the outcome, but some for different reasons than others. FAIL.
8) In Devenpeck v. Alford - 2004 - Thomas joined an 8-Justice UNANIMOUS DECISION. Rehnquist did not take part in this case. EPIC FAIL.
Millhiser doesn't share the make-up of the decisions in these cases, instead choosing to mislead the reader by suggesting that Thomas' votes that happened to fall along the same position that CCI urged in a brief is evidence of the fix being in. Half of these cases were unanimous decisions. Many pre-dated the bust of Lincoln, and ALL of them predated the Tea Party by at least 5 years! None of these cases show Thomas taking a position that is uncharacteristic of his views of the Constitution, or have him departing from views held by other Justices - who have not been subject to similar smears.
Think Progress is walking a dangerous line.
Right Back At Ya
Hillary Clinton asked Congress whose side they were on with regard to Libya.
Reportedly, America responded, "We were going to ask your boss the same question, but with regard to the economy...the Constitution...Iran...China..."
And in an ironic twist, Obama phoned Bill Clinton to inquire as to who's side he is on.
Reportedly, America responded, "We were going to ask your boss the same question, but with regard to the economy...the Constitution...Iran...China..."
And in an ironic twist, Obama phoned Bill Clinton to inquire as to who's side he is on.
The Dishonest Treatment of Clarence Thomas
Think Progress's Ian Millhiser is making it his mission to discredit Justice Thomas. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he is misstating the truth. Millhiser follows the NYT's article highlighting Thomas' friendship with Mr. Crow, and suggests that Thomas has been bought for the price of one bust of Lincoln. Millhiser points to three cases in which the American Enterprise Institute - the group that gave the bust to Thomas - has filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court, and Thomas has not recused himself.
Millhiser claims that AFTER Thomas received the bust of Lincoln, AEI filed an amicus brief in Whitman v. American Trucking Associates. This is not true. Millhiser himself links to the brief here. Note that is was filed in July of 2000. Millhiser notes that the bust was given to Thomas in 2001 (This case was also argued in 2000, with the decision issued in February 2001), so he's wrong right there. But further, looking at the case, the decision was written by Scalia, and every justice joined in the judgment. But wait, there's more: the position that AEI (which was one of 43 who signed the brief, including PAUL KRUGMAN!!!) was advancing was unanimously shot down by the Supreme Court. Thomas' concurring opinion merely states that he is of the opinion that "there are cases in which the principle is intelligible and yet the significance of the delegated decision is simply too great for the decision to be called anything other than "legislative."...[o]n a future day I would be willing to address the question whether our delegation jurisprudence has strayed too far from our Founders' understanding of separation of powers." I defy Millhiser to show how that line of thinking is in any way different from Thomas' understood view of the Constitution, and the subject of outside influence.
In Riley v. Kennedy, the Court's opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg. Souter and Stevens dissented. It was a 7-2 decision.
You get the point. There has been no evidence that Thomas has in any way abused his position, or sold his influence. No one can point to a case where Thomas' vote went in a direction opposite to his usual and long-held views as the result of undue influence. This is a lame witch-hunt built on lies and innuendo.
In another article, Millhiser claims that Thomas is akin to Abe Fortas, in that Fortas once took $15,000 as a speaking fee - the same amount that the Lincoln bust is valued at. Millhiser's point is that Fortas ultimately had to resign from the US Supreme Court over such an issue. There is a world of difference here. Fortas' speaking fee was about 7 times more than a normal and usual speaking fee at the time. Further, Fortas, as a Supreme Court justice, accepted a $20,000 retainer to give legal advice to a man who was subsequently convicted of securities fraud. Generally, judges shouldn't dispense legal advice or advisory opinions. Supreme Court justices should not be retained or be available for retainer. Fortas crossed a line so clearly and repugnantly that he should have resigned. The burden is still on Millhiser and co. to show that Thomas has done anything untoward.
Think Progress continues its campaign of misinformation. It's tragic that they choose to fabricate scandal and dishonesty in government, especially when there is so much true material in Washington to work with. That they will undermine our system and the confidence we have in the system to advance their misguided agenda is beyond troubling. These people are liars and do no good.
Millhiser claims that AFTER Thomas received the bust of Lincoln, AEI filed an amicus brief in Whitman v. American Trucking Associates. This is not true. Millhiser himself links to the brief here. Note that is was filed in July of 2000. Millhiser notes that the bust was given to Thomas in 2001 (This case was also argued in 2000, with the decision issued in February 2001), so he's wrong right there. But further, looking at the case, the decision was written by Scalia, and every justice joined in the judgment. But wait, there's more: the position that AEI (which was one of 43 who signed the brief, including PAUL KRUGMAN!!!) was advancing was unanimously shot down by the Supreme Court. Thomas' concurring opinion merely states that he is of the opinion that "there are cases in which the principle is intelligible and yet the significance of the delegated decision is simply too great for the decision to be called anything other than "legislative."...[o]n a future day I would be willing to address the question whether our delegation jurisprudence has strayed too far from our Founders' understanding of separation of powers." I defy Millhiser to show how that line of thinking is in any way different from Thomas' understood view of the Constitution, and the subject of outside influence.
In Riley v. Kennedy, the Court's opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg. Souter and Stevens dissented. It was a 7-2 decision.
You get the point. There has been no evidence that Thomas has in any way abused his position, or sold his influence. No one can point to a case where Thomas' vote went in a direction opposite to his usual and long-held views as the result of undue influence. This is a lame witch-hunt built on lies and innuendo.
In another article, Millhiser claims that Thomas is akin to Abe Fortas, in that Fortas once took $15,000 as a speaking fee - the same amount that the Lincoln bust is valued at. Millhiser's point is that Fortas ultimately had to resign from the US Supreme Court over such an issue. There is a world of difference here. Fortas' speaking fee was about 7 times more than a normal and usual speaking fee at the time. Further, Fortas, as a Supreme Court justice, accepted a $20,000 retainer to give legal advice to a man who was subsequently convicted of securities fraud. Generally, judges shouldn't dispense legal advice or advisory opinions. Supreme Court justices should not be retained or be available for retainer. Fortas crossed a line so clearly and repugnantly that he should have resigned. The burden is still on Millhiser and co. to show that Thomas has done anything untoward.
Think Progress continues its campaign of misinformation. It's tragic that they choose to fabricate scandal and dishonesty in government, especially when there is so much true material in Washington to work with. That they will undermine our system and the confidence we have in the system to advance their misguided agenda is beyond troubling. These people are liars and do no good.
It's The Economy, Stupid
A new poll indicates 30% would re-elect based on the economy.
This is the central issue for 2012. The GOP candidates need to keep their collective eye on the ball and hold Obama's feet to the fire on the economy.
This is the central issue for 2012. The GOP candidates need to keep their collective eye on the ball and hold Obama's feet to the fire on the economy.
Because We Had To Pass It To See What Was In It
According to the AP (what - those guys? Really?), "President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed."
Well, this has got to be shocking for anyone who doesn't think Medicare is nearing the stroke of midnight. When you get a quote like this:
The lesson, as always, is that Nancy Pelosi is a dolt. I bet you thought that the lesson was going to be that Congress should read everything first and understand it before sending it to the Executive branch so that we avoid these kinds of surprises. No, kids, that lesson shouldn't require this type of scenario - it should be standard operating procedure. Good grief.
Well, this has got to be shocking for anyone who doesn't think Medicare is nearing the stroke of midnight. When you get a quote like this:
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.Things can't be good.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
The lesson, as always, is that Nancy Pelosi is a dolt. I bet you thought that the lesson was going to be that Congress should read everything first and understand it before sending it to the Executive branch so that we avoid these kinds of surprises. No, kids, that lesson shouldn't require this type of scenario - it should be standard operating procedure. Good grief.
Thanks For Nothing, SBA List
The Susan B. Anthony List is very proud of itself. SBA List has put a pledge in front of the Republican Presidential candidates, and most have signed it. Notably Gov. Romney has not signed it, though he says he's not against it. The Pledge, in short, asks every candidate to make abortion a central issue in the campaign. Congrat's to SBA List - they have just potentially sabotaged the 2012 campaign.
Right now the Republicans have a great opportunity: Obama is very vulnerable. The economy is listing again (still?), unemployment remains high and the America is starting to realize that Obama has no real economic plan other than transforming the US into a European social democracy. Obama is not post-racial, he is not the resolute leader of the greatest nation on Earth but rather is a sandal-wearing doink who has to sneak cigarettes when his wife isn't looking (look: either have the will to quit or be unabashed about using tobacco!). Obama is beatable.
the Republicans should be talking about the economy, Obamacare, and THE ECONOMY. Hammer a President who has woeful approval ratings with what he must own: the economy. Unite the Right and Center, conservative and independent on that issue. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind start injecting abortion into the discussion? It's a whole lot easier to get people to agree that the economy sucks and Obama doesn't know what he's doing than it is to get people to agree on reproductive rights and the role government should play. It may well be that Planned Parenthood is corrupt, or a huge waste of taxpayer money. However, Planned Parenthood by itself is not to blame for the current economic crisis.
By raising the issue of abortion, SBA List may stall the momentum that the Republicans have been gaining. Most of the candidates have not issued a detailed economic plan, but now most are on the record pledging certain actions regarding abortion! It raises the question as to what is the real priority for the Republican party, and it raises the question of who will have the most influence on the party. I worry that this move will give the Democrats an issue to work as leverage and play on the fears of the independents - "all the Republicans care about is abortion - see, they aren't serious about fixing the economy."
SBA List may prove to be a distraction that derails the entire party. I hope they enjoyed the champagne. The abortion issue should have been left alone until after the election. In fact, It's an issue that should be handled the way Democrats approach gun control - don't try to go whole-hog on it, but chip away piece by piece, softly, gently, unendingly.
Right now the Republicans have a great opportunity: Obama is very vulnerable. The economy is listing again (still?), unemployment remains high and the America is starting to realize that Obama has no real economic plan other than transforming the US into a European social democracy. Obama is not post-racial, he is not the resolute leader of the greatest nation on Earth but rather is a sandal-wearing doink who has to sneak cigarettes when his wife isn't looking (look: either have the will to quit or be unabashed about using tobacco!). Obama is beatable.
the Republicans should be talking about the economy, Obamacare, and THE ECONOMY. Hammer a President who has woeful approval ratings with what he must own: the economy. Unite the Right and Center, conservative and independent on that issue. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind start injecting abortion into the discussion? It's a whole lot easier to get people to agree that the economy sucks and Obama doesn't know what he's doing than it is to get people to agree on reproductive rights and the role government should play. It may well be that Planned Parenthood is corrupt, or a huge waste of taxpayer money. However, Planned Parenthood by itself is not to blame for the current economic crisis.
By raising the issue of abortion, SBA List may stall the momentum that the Republicans have been gaining. Most of the candidates have not issued a detailed economic plan, but now most are on the record pledging certain actions regarding abortion! It raises the question as to what is the real priority for the Republican party, and it raises the question of who will have the most influence on the party. I worry that this move will give the Democrats an issue to work as leverage and play on the fears of the independents - "all the Republicans care about is abortion - see, they aren't serious about fixing the economy."
SBA List may prove to be a distraction that derails the entire party. I hope they enjoyed the champagne. The abortion issue should have been left alone until after the election. In fact, It's an issue that should be handled the way Democrats approach gun control - don't try to go whole-hog on it, but chip away piece by piece, softly, gently, unendingly.
NYT Takes Up Where Weiner Left Off
Disgraced and soon-to-be-former Congressman Anthony Weiner had been leading a charge against US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, claiming that the justice should recuse himself from hearing the Obamacare case(s). Specifically, the left is claiming that Thomas's wife's participation in a group that is against Obamacare necessarily mandates that Thomas not participate in Obamacare hearings. This is nothing more than a weak stunt to hedge the expected outcome of the case; if the Justices decide along traditional conservative-liberal lines, then Obamacare is expected to fail on a 5-4 vote. Removing one of the five (Thomas) could result in a split-vote, and the decision (even if against Obamacare) would not be precedential for purposes ofstare decisis. Further, assuming that Thomas does not recuse himself, the left's hope is then to marginalize the decision by raising the false specter of judicial misconduct. Think of all the people who believe that GWB was unjustly awarded the Presidency by a conservative Supreme Court; those are the same people who won't accept the decision that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Buckle up!
Today, with Anthony Weiner reduced in profile, the NYT picks up the slack and runs this story about Justice Thomas. It's a bit lengthy and mostly full of, well, filler and no meat. In short, it might read: Justice Thomas has a rich friend who donated money to build a museum and help preserve pat of a Congression-designated historical/cultural corridor. Other pertinent facts are that Justice Thomas' mother used to work at the site of the museum as a crab-picker, and Justice Thomas grew up nearby.
The article tries to suggest that Justice Thomas is engaging in unethical behavior, although the writer can't quite bring himself to say exactly what the Justice has done that is unethical, choosing instead to simply waft the suggestion around. Interstingly, the writer cites a law prof who, in advocating for more strict judicial ethics, states what the Justice shouldn't do. However, another law prof states that he couldn't characterize the Justice's involvement as unethical.
Mostly, the article is heavy on useless filler and light on facts that relate directly to the writer's thesis.
Judicial ethics, particularly for Federal Judges, are based on general guidelines, things judges should or should not do, and the Canons state that "judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation." Is would suggest reading Judge McKoski's Law Review article on the subject of impartiality. At the Supreme Court level, impartiality is measured in the decisions issued by the court, and not by rampant, partisan speculation prior to a case even getting to the Supreme Court.
The war that is being waged against Justice Thomas is nothing more than a final effort from the left as Obamacare circles the drain one last time on its way to defeat. The argument for recusal is weak, at best, and gives zero credit to Justice Thomas' abilities and track record as a jurist to perform his duty free of bias. Of course, the left has never been overly preoccupied with the importance of fulfilling governmental duties - the Senate still hasn't provided a budget!
UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin's take on the story
Today, with Anthony Weiner reduced in profile, the NYT picks up the slack and runs this story about Justice Thomas. It's a bit lengthy and mostly full of, well, filler and no meat. In short, it might read: Justice Thomas has a rich friend who donated money to build a museum and help preserve pat of a Congression-designated historical/cultural corridor. Other pertinent facts are that Justice Thomas' mother used to work at the site of the museum as a crab-picker, and Justice Thomas grew up nearby.
The article tries to suggest that Justice Thomas is engaging in unethical behavior, although the writer can't quite bring himself to say exactly what the Justice has done that is unethical, choosing instead to simply waft the suggestion around. Interstingly, the writer cites a law prof who, in advocating for more strict judicial ethics, states what the Justice shouldn't do. However, another law prof states that he couldn't characterize the Justice's involvement as unethical.
Mostly, the article is heavy on useless filler and light on facts that relate directly to the writer's thesis.
Judicial ethics, particularly for Federal Judges, are based on general guidelines, things judges should or should not do, and the Canons state that "judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation." Is would suggest reading Judge McKoski's Law Review article on the subject of impartiality. At the Supreme Court level, impartiality is measured in the decisions issued by the court, and not by rampant, partisan speculation prior to a case even getting to the Supreme Court.
The war that is being waged against Justice Thomas is nothing more than a final effort from the left as Obamacare circles the drain one last time on its way to defeat. The argument for recusal is weak, at best, and gives zero credit to Justice Thomas' abilities and track record as a jurist to perform his duty free of bias. Of course, the left has never been overly preoccupied with the importance of fulfilling governmental duties - the Senate still hasn't provided a budget!
UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin's take on the story
Choice May Not Be Weiner's to Make
Lost in all the kerfuffle about Weinergate and the photos, emails, contacts with underage girls far from his own district, contacts with porn stars and buried behind the lies, excuses, lies, accusations, lies and even more lies of Weiner's cover-up is the story that Weiner may lose his seat regardless of a scandal to redistricting. According to the results of the census, NY is going to lose two seats. This is due to the great migration known as population shift, which has been a result of the current economy. I would argue that anything that reduces the influence that NY has on our national policies can't be all bad, especially given the clowns that NY has a propensity to send to Washington.
I had the feeling that Weiner would not give up his seat easily. It has been reported that Weiner has zero personal fortune and no prior job experience worth mentioning outside of politics. That is, Weiner has no day job to go back to, and in effect needs his job as a Congressman. Weiner has been disgraced, which lessens his future job prospects - we already have an over-sexed, sleazy, loudmouth, disgraced ex-pol on cable news, we won't tolerate another. No, Weiner won't go gently. Clearly he has no shame, so why wouldn't he cling to his office for as long as possible? Perhaps he'll wait it out long enough to extract some type of offer of a job somewhere if he'll just go. Maybe he believes that if he waits and gets ousted via re-districting, he can re-write history and claim that he was never accused of breaking a law, never in violation of House Ethics, and the only reason he's out of the House is because of the Census results. Again, this is a man with all ego and no shame.
Of course, maybe he'll prove me wrong and resign tomorrow...
UPDATE: it took 2 days, and now he's gone.
I had the feeling that Weiner would not give up his seat easily. It has been reported that Weiner has zero personal fortune and no prior job experience worth mentioning outside of politics. That is, Weiner has no day job to go back to, and in effect needs his job as a Congressman. Weiner has been disgraced, which lessens his future job prospects - we already have an over-sexed, sleazy, loudmouth, disgraced ex-pol on cable news, we won't tolerate another. No, Weiner won't go gently. Clearly he has no shame, so why wouldn't he cling to his office for as long as possible? Perhaps he'll wait it out long enough to extract some type of offer of a job somewhere if he'll just go. Maybe he believes that if he waits and gets ousted via re-districting, he can re-write history and claim that he was never accused of breaking a law, never in violation of House Ethics, and the only reason he's out of the House is because of the Census results. Again, this is a man with all ego and no shame.
Of course, maybe he'll prove me wrong and resign tomorrow...
UPDATE: it took 2 days, and now he's gone.
Dodd, Frank & Durbin = 3 Stooges of the Economy
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, aside from being an example of legislative quackery, is also a terrifying example of how regulation can destroy the economy. The Durbin amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill was rushed into place and given little if any thought as to what the unintended consequences of the regulation would be. As former Speaker Pelosi was so fond of saying, only by passing the bill and seeing what happens will we understand the contents thereof (she didn't say it exactly like that - her words, like her, are more foolish). So, time passes and Prof. Todd Zywicki surveys the carnage in Durbin's Innovation Killer: [Note: the original article is somewhat longer - these are the main points below]
For example, the rate for interchange fees (the price a merchant pays when you use your debit card at your local retailer) has been set by the free market at about 44 cents per transaction. Under proposed Federal Reserve rules implementing the Durbin amendment, the controlled price would be 7-12 cents per transaction, a massive revenue cut. Banks covered by that provision (only those whose assets exceed $10 billion) have already announced that in response to this projected loss of tens of billions of dollars in debit card interchange revenues they will impose new or higher monthly service fees on bank customers. Among those most affected will be lower-income consumers who currently benefit from access to free checking accounts that will soon disappear. It is estimated that these new fees and other banking requirements (such as higher minimum balances) may drive as many as 1 million low-income consumers out of the mainstream banking system and into the hands of check-cashers, pawn shops, and other alternative financial providers.
But while these obvious unintended consequences of the Durbin amendment are bad enough, especially for low-income consumers, a less-noticed but more far-reaching effect may be to destroy innovation in the payment card industry, harming consumers and the economy and promoting continued reliance on inferior substitutes such as checks.
The Durbin amendment, however, threatens this innovation. Two provisions of the amendment pose particular danger to innovation.
The first, mentioned already, is the new price control imposed on the interchange fees for debit cards issued by large financial institutions. The second is a provision that requires every payment card (including credit cards as well as debit cards) to be able to be processed on two different networks. So, for example, while today a debit card issued by ABC Bank might be processed by the MasterCard network and XYZ Bank might issue a Visa card, under the amendment, ABC Bank would have to offer two networks to process the transactions (say, MasterCard and Visa), thereby permitting the merchant to choose to process the transaction on the lower-price network. These two provisions could stifle innovation in the payment card industry.
Begin with the price controls on debit-card interchange fees issued by large banks (only debit cards, not credit cards are covered). First, as noted, one effect of these price controls will be to redistribute the costs of debit card operations from merchants who accept payment cards to consumers who use them. In turn, this will lead to higher banking fees for consumers, driving many consumers out of the banking system. While some of those consumers will make increased use of non-bank prepaid cards (which often sport very high fees), others will fall back on greater use of cash. Even for those not driven out of the banking system entirely, the Durbin amendment increases the cost and reduces the benefits of debit cards relative to other payment systems such as cash and checks, thus some of these consumers might reduce their use of debit cards too.
This effect in itself could prove significant to the pace of innovation in the payment card system. The globally interconnected payment card system is a network that links together consumers, merchants, and financial institutions. Like any network, the value of the network itself increases as the number of users on all sides of the network increases and the marginal cost of serving the network falls. Thus, reducing the number of participants in the network—as the Durbin Amendment probably will—reduces the overall value of the network and the value for each member of the network. In turn, this will reduce the resource base available for capital investments in innovation.
Second, and more directly, the Durbin amendment’s price controls on debit cards by definition will reduce the incentive to make any investments that cannot be recouped in the regulated price permitted by the Federal Reserve. Thus, while the Durbin amendment purportedly permits the recovery of “reasonable and proportional” costs tied to the card issuers’ actual cost, in fact it permits the recovery of only the “incremental cost” of transactions, thereby excluding costs of operation, such as advertising, issuing cards, and providing customer support.
To the extent that card issuers make improvements in card quality, such as increased processing speed or security, it is highly uncertain whether those costs could be recouped as allowable costs under the terms of the Durbin amendment. If so, then this would provide a major deterrent from investing in those card attributes as opposed to simply attempting to minimize the cost of card operations.
This predictable effect, of course, is consistent with the lessons learned from decades of public utility regulation. From Ma Bell to locally regulated cable and electricity utilities, history teaches that industries subjected to regulation, especially price controls, stagnate technologically. If card issuers cannot recover the cost of new innovation, then they simply will not innovate.
On the other end of the scale, the expansive definition of “debit card” under the Durbin amendment has been interpreted by the Federal Reserve to include any card or similar product that directly debits a consumer’s account. The definition thus would include PayPal, for example, or mobile phone payment or remote payment systems that directly debit a consumer’s account. Unless these payment systems are exempted by some other provision of the Durbin amendment, the stringent price controls would be imposed to them as well. Note that this means, for example, that the cost of building out a new mobile payment system (such as the ability to swipe a cell phone for payment) or remote payment via mobile phone would be an expense for which the price control provisions of the Durbin amendment would not make allowance. At the very least, the arbitrary definition that the Durbin amendment provides for debit cards will promote regulatory arbitrage, as competitors seek to design their products not solely to maximize their economic and technological viability but to gerrymander them out of the Durbin amendment’s net.
A second area in which price controls will likely stifle innovation is in fraud control. The Durbin amendment provides that the Federal Reserve “may” allow for an adjustment for the permitted fees for costs incurred by the issuer in preventing fraud. In the proposed rule-making issued by the Federal Reserve in December, however, the Federal Reserve made no allowance at that time for fraud prevention costs. Moreover, even if the Federal Reserve does decide to permit recovery of costs related to fraud prevention, there remains the vexing question of what costs will be classified as recoverable under the law.
There are a range of actions or non-actions that issuers can take to reduce the potential for fraud to occur. For example, the issuer can invest in very high levels of data security or lesser levels of security. Will the Durbin amendment permit recovery for those who make higher investments in greater data security? Or will those investments simply be lost?
Consider a more direct problem involving recovery for fraud prevention costs. In Europe, most payment cards use the “chip and PIN” system of security, which replaces the magnetic stripe on the card (which simply contains information that can be copied and used without the physical card) with an embedded microchip (which cannot). Although certainly not foolproof, the chip and PIN system has reduced fraud where it has been introduced and is generally thought to be more secure than the simpler magnetic stripe system used in the United States. On the other hand, the incidence of fraud in the United States is substantially lower than elsewhere—hence it has not been thought economically justifiable to adopt the chip and PIN system in the United States. According to one estimate, for example, it costs about $2 to issue a traditional magnetic stripe card and $15 to $20 to issue a chip and PIN card. If card issuers are unable to recover the costs of adopting a chip and PIN card-based system from interchange fees, then consumers will have to bear these transition costs directly, which seems likely to slow their adoption. In turn, this will slow the willingness of merchants to invest in the special payment terminals needed to enable payment by chip and PIN technologies.
Exacerbating the effects of the price control provisions of the Durbin amendment is its requirement that every payment card (including credit, prepaid, and government benefit cards) be required to offer at least two networks for each transaction, thereby permitting the merchant to select the least expensive. This inevitably will produce a race to the bottom in terms of creating incentives to innovate. Innovation and product improvement requires ongoing investment. Even if those investments were permitted to be recovered under the Durbin amendment as a legal matter, it is unlikely that an issuer could recover them as a practical matter because those cards that refused to make those investments would be able to offer their product at a lower rate than those that did not. Moreover, merchants generally do not bear the costs associated with fraud and other quality issues, thus they have no incentive to choose a more secure but higher-cost network. Because merchants can externalize the costs of fraud onto consumers and issuers, they will have little incentive to use a network that benefits consumers through greater security but costs more. Instead, merchants can be expected, whenever possible, to gravitate toward low-cost, high-fraud networks. Moreover, because this requirement of offering a choice of networks applies to all types of payment cards, the overall effect with be felt across all types of cards.
Whither Weiner
As the Anthony Weiner story grows (sorry), the issue has turned from just how awful a person Weiner is to whether he should stay or go. That Anthony Weiner is about the worst kind of person is a fact. You can debate all you want about what is the worst thing he's done - sending pictures of himself and body parts to women; x-rated email conversations with porn stars; lying about the facts; blaming innocent people; doing all of the above while married; doing all of the above after learning his wife is pregnant - it adds up to seven shades of ugly.
The issue of whether he should stay or go has taken on a new life of it's own, and truly it's an important question that flows from the circumstances. John Hinderaker atPowerline said:
I completely fail to understand why any Republican would call for Weiner's resignation. Are you kidding? I want him in Congress forever, if possible! I want him representing his party on every other cable news show, as he has done for the last several years. I want people to snicker every time they see a "D" behind a Congressman's name. Anthony Weiner is the gift that keeps on giving, the twit that keeps on tweeting!His point makes sense from a purely political perspective, but I worry that it is a short-sighted approach. If Weiner clings to his job and seeks re-election, then (short of being censured or expelled by the House) the issue is placed firmly in the hands of his constituents. If he is re-elected, then he becomes bullet-proof. In the same way Ted Kennedy was and Barney Frank is, Anthony Weiner would be untouchable. Worse, as his scandal then fades in everyone's memory, he could gain credibility by doing nothing more than curbing his sexual tendencies, becoming a good family man and exercising sound judgment. Anytime anyone wanted to bring up his scandal, the rejoinder would be that clearly no one cares and move on. Somewhat similar to how Bush's DUI or Bush and Obama's prior cocaine use is of no import. I'm not likening the offenses, merely the responses.Resign? Hell no! I want Anthony Weiner to be the face of the Democratic Party. I wonder: has he looked into the possibility of a primary challenge against President Obama?
The other side of the issue is that Weiner must go and go now. This is politically expedient to the Democrats, as by pushing him out of office they get to wear the mantle of righteousness and honor. They would be excising an ugly distraction from their defense of Obamacare, their attack on Paul Ryan's plan and the drive to get Obama re-elected, and to avoid being blatantly hypocritical. Perhaps the Democrats should not be denied their right to judge one of their own, even if doing so serves other purposes beyond maintaining standards.
Jeffrey Kuhner tries to paint the issue with a mile-wide brush today. I think he goes a lot too far in saying:
The problem is that Weinergate goes to the heart of the Democrats’ cultural liberalism. Try as they might to disown him, he embodies the party’s moral rot. Mr. Weiner is a progressive crusader. He has championed almost every secular leftist cause: socialized medicine, government day care, welfare, high taxes, abortion rights, homosexual marriage, gays in the military, sex education in schools and a European-style nanny state. In other words, he peddles sex and socialism - the twin pillars of progressivism.There's plenty of moral rot to go around in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. To try to suggest that the Democrats have the market on immorality cornered is juvenile. That said, I would echo the sentiment that we as voters should be vigilant and hold our elected officials to the highest standards. We should not be afraid to strip them of their office when they fail such as Weiner has. Indeed, if Weiner does not face an incessant bellowing and call from his colleagues to step down, and if the House does not take action, is the message to be gleaned by others in office, or who seek to hold office, that you can be corrupt to a point, that you can lie and cover-up to a point? Every time an elected official is allowed to skate on this kind of behavior, the bar is set even lower. What does it say about us that we continue to elect these people?
I believe that the best the Republicans should hope for is that Weiner stands defiant for a few months, staying in the headlines, before finally acceding to the calls for his resignation. The country is best-served by Congress re-establishing and enforcing standards.
Derek Jeter = Best Player Ever (No, Not Really)
Time to talk baseball. As the Red Sox are currently in the middle of a series in the Bronx, it comes as little surprise to find an article over-stating the abilities of Derek Jeter. Full disclosure: I am an ardent Red Sox fan. However, I do not hate Jeter. I think Jeter is a terrific player, has always played the game hard and played "the right way," has always conducted himself with class and dignity on and off the field, and will rightly be inducted into Cooperstown exactly five years after he retires. I would have loved to have had Jeter on the Red Sox (probably not starting now, given that he's about to turn 37 this month).
To try to fluff Jeter's stature in baseball via BABIP is disingenuous, and ultimately undermines the player Jeter has been for his career. BABIP is little more than a fantasy number, because it ignores a hitter's propensity to strikeout. You can't hit safely in 56 straight games if you are prone to striking out, nor can you bat .406 if you whiff 100 times. A close examination of Jeter's BABIP does little more than remind us of how much he resembles David Wright. And frankly, Jeter deserves better.
On ESPN's site today, something named Mark Simon wrote about Jeter's true legacy being his career BABIP. I was a devotee of the old website firejoemorgan.com, and enjoy sabermetrics as much as one can while still maintaining a family and numerous friendships, but BABIP as a true measure of a player? Really? Okay, for those who don't geek out on baseball I should explain that BABIP is the number that represents a players batting average on balls hit into play. That is, you take the number of hits and subtract home runs and then divide that number by at-bats minus strikeouts and homeruns but add sacrifice flies. The result is a player's batting average for balls that he hit that landed somewhere in the park. Very exciting.
BABIP is mildly useful as a tool to better understand a pitcher or hitter's numbers. However, what it is indicative of is somewhat of a mystery, which is to say that it is not a very useful tool in evaluating a player's worth, and there are many other metrics that give a clearer insight into a player's stats. For example, let's look at Jeter's 1999 season, without question his best season at the plate. In '99, Jeter had a batted .349, hit 24 home runs and drove in 102 rbi's. His OBP was .438. His BABIP was .396 - the highest in his career. Compare that to Mark McGwire's 1999 season. (Yes, I know Big Mac was juiced up and cheating at the time, but we are comparing numbers, not the man). Mac batted .278, with 65 hr's and 147 rbi, and a .424 OBP. His BABIP was .250. The MLB average BABIP is .300. You can argue all you want about who you would rather have on your team, but you cannot escape the fact that Mac's numbers were huge! Of course, if you want to subscribe to the theory that BABIP is important, then clearly Jeter had the monster season, while Mac's was below-average. So we see that BABIP does not reflect reality.
Interestingly enough, if one looks at the 1999 MVP voting, Ivan Rodriquez won the AL MVP and had a BABIP of .324 - that's 72 points lower than Jeter! In fact, Jeter came in 5th in MVP voting that year. I can now tell you that BABIP had not been introduced in 1999. But that doesn't change anything. If we look at 2009, the NL MVP Albert Pujols was not among the top 30 players for BABIP. Further, Ian Kinsler and Adrian Gonzalez were among the 8 lowest BABIP, yet each received MVP votes, With AGonz coming in 12th. The players who are able to achieve a high BABIP are generally among the better hitters in the league, but be aware of the distortions. David Wright, in 2009, had a BABIP of .394. Of course, he also struckout 140 times. In 1941, Joe DiMaggio stuckout 13 times, hit .357, but his BABIP was .327. In that same year, Ted Williams famously batted .406, struckout 27 times, but had BABIP of .378. In fact, Ted Williams complied a career batting average of .344, but a career BABIP of .328. Ted Williams is generally considered one of the three best (if not THE best) hitters of all-time, particularly for power and average. Derek Jeter is not considered one of the best hitters of all-time. Not even close.
I, Me, Mine
Nice piece from Jonah Goldberg at the LA Times.
So far all we've seen is smoke and mirrors from Obama on the economy. It's long past time that the media stop covering for him.
When do we get to send in the adults?
So far all we've seen is smoke and mirrors from Obama on the economy. It's long past time that the media stop covering for him.
When do we get to send in the adults?
Weiner's Roots
Over at Salon.com there is a nice little piece about Anthony Weiner's political beginnings. If you are disgusted with him in light of recent events, you probably won't feel any better after reading about his history.
UPDATE: It's always a vast right-wing conspiracy, isn't it?
UPDATE: It's always a vast right-wing conspiracy, isn't it?
His campaign donors said they were especially shocked and furious because a week ago the congressman attributed his online travails to a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” a contributor who spoke with him said.I imagine that if there were a vast conspiracy, the conspirators would be increasingly frustrated by their targets beating them to the punch!
Would Palin Fare Better With a Teleprompter?
It can be easy to confuse oratory skills with intelligence. People are impressed by a well-thought-out argument presented articulately. It is what lawyers do at trial. It is why politicians often employ speech writers and teleprompters. Armed with a teleprompter or even a written speech, a person at the podium simply has to read the words. He doesn't even have to think about them. Recall the scene from Anchorman when Ron Burgundy's weakness is exposed: he will read whatever pops up on the teleprompter.
Sometimes politicians show us a different side of themselves when they are exposed to a Q&A session with the press, or are forced to go off-script. These moments tend to dissolve the illusion of intelligence. As the media continues it's obsession with Revere-gate and people are going to great pains to label the issue as evidence that Palin is dumb, lets take a stroll down Memory Lane to when Obama's teleprompter left him high and dry. the interesting thing about this video is that Obama was unable to articulate his points on his own.
Generally I am loathe to mine material from blogs I visit, but the Prof. really put up some gold this morning, so I couldn't resist. Due credit to Legal Insurrection.
Sometimes politicians show us a different side of themselves when they are exposed to a Q&A session with the press, or are forced to go off-script. These moments tend to dissolve the illusion of intelligence. As the media continues it's obsession with Revere-gate and people are going to great pains to label the issue as evidence that Palin is dumb, lets take a stroll down Memory Lane to when Obama's teleprompter left him high and dry. the interesting thing about this video is that Obama was unable to articulate his points on his own.
Generally I am loathe to mine material from blogs I visit, but the Prof. really put up some gold this morning, so I couldn't resist. Due credit to Legal Insurrection.
Pawlenty Gets It
Tim Pawlenty has outlined his economic goals:
1) 5% economic growth
2) Medicaid reform – cap and block grant
3) Raise the Social Security retirement age
4) 15% Corporate Tax rate
5) Lower personal taxes
6) Freeze Federal spending until budget is balanced
Pawlenty understands that the government shouldn’t prosper, but if it does, it should be only as the nation prospers.
“American businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. That’s a recipe for failure, not adding jobs and economic growth.“We should cut the business tax rate by more than half. I propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%. But our policies can’t just be about simply cutting rates. They must also promote freedom and free markets. The tax code is littered with special interest handouts, carve-outs,subsidies, and loopholes that should be eliminated.”
Lowering the Corporate tax rate is essential to economic growth. Doing so makes the USA a more attractive place to do business. That helps attract corporations and it keeps businesses here. It allows corporations to reinvest in themselves at a higher rate which translates to a greater ability to compete and to grow and hire more workers. More people working is the best economic stimulus – people who earn a wage purchase goods and homes.
Raising the Social Security retirement age simply makes sense and is long overdue.
“On the individual rates we need a simpler, fairer flatter tax system overall. I propose just two rates: 10% and 25%. Under my plan, those who currently pay no income tax would stay at a zero rate. After that, the first $50,000 of income – or $100,000 for married couples – would be taxed at 10 percent.
“Everything above that would be taxed at 25 percent. That’s it. A one-third cut in the bottom rate to allow younger, middle, and lower-income families to save and build wealth. And a 28 percent cut in the top rate to spur investment and job creation.
People will argue that wealthiest 10% will simply become even wealthier. Well, that was going to happen anyway, assuming Obama doesn’t achieve his dream of driving the economy off a cliff, into a brick wall and then setting whatever is left on fire as he destroys all wealth in the USA. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest is a major disincentive to success in America, as well as a wonderful tool for choking the economy. The re-distributionists will clamor about “fair share” and the like. Under current scenarios – which would continue under Pawlenty’s plan – if you earn under $50K, you don’t pay any taxes. None. Free ride. But you get the same access to government and enjoy the same government protections as the people who fund the government by paying taxes.
“In addition, we should eliminate altogether the capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax, and the death tax. Government has no moral or economic basis to claim a second share of the same income. When you deposit a dollar in your bank account, every penny should be forever more yours and your children’s, not the federal government’s."
What a load of truth! Eliminating the capital gains tax is important to incentivize investment; why invest if you can’t make money? I agree with the moral issue as well, particularly with regard to the death tax; it invokes the question of whose money is it anyway? By hitting heirs with an Estate Tax, the implication is that we only own things at the government’s whim – that somehow the government has an ownership interest in our property, both real and personal. That notion is incongruent with freedom.
Tim Pawlenty continues to impress.
UPDATE: Pawlenty attacks GM's suggestion that Obama implement a $1/gallon increase in gas tax.
UPDATE: Pawlenty attacks GM's suggestion that Obama implement a $1/gallon increase in gas tax.
The Problem With Palin
Sarah Palin continues to enjoy - or suffer? - intense media scrutiny. Of course, I’m talking about her bus tour that may or may not be a run-up to an announcement of her candidacy. Whether it’s the media complaining that Palin is not accommodating the needs and comforts of the reporters who have been dispatched to document her every move, or bloggers seizing on her every word to unveil a “gotcha” moment, we are inundated with stories about Palin, and stories about stories about Palin.
Why is it that the media is foisting it’s obsession with Palin on us? The left dissects every statement she makes to try to drive home the point that Palin is dumb, or inarticulate, and certainly could not be a serious candidate (if she were to ever decide to become one). I think that there are two reasons that drive the Palin narrative.
First is to try to de-legitimize the Republican party. Some polls suggest that Palin would be the Republican candidate most likely to emerge as the nominee. If the left can paint Palin as foolish and a poor candidate, then Obama ostensibly looks like a better candidate in comparison. Further, the Republican party looks foolish for having supported such a candidate.
the second reason is the media is working on a great misdirection of news. The blogs on the left salivated over the Paul Revere issue (with the result that everyone is now questioning their own grasp of history). Goodness, did Palin mangle the well-known story of Paul Revere’s midnight ride in an off-the-cuff statement, or did she kind of get it right, or is the gist of it somewhat on target, or should we even care that a non-candidate got it wrong, or not-fully-right? Is it as big a deal when a Senator who holds a JD from Harvard mis-states the law and history on the Senate floor? Well, the beauty is that we all get to decide for ourselves who to forgive. The point is that the left is pushing the conversation to Palin in the hopes of capitalizing on her gaffes (and they’ll invent gaffes, if need be), instead of focusing on major issues that this country is facing, particularly the issues that should be laid at Obama’s feet. Unemployment; spending; Libya; Israel; Syria; the list goes on. None of these are deemed worthy of conversation, but the snarky left always goes back to the Palin Well (as an aside, between Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Seth Myers, I didn’t think there was any left-over snark to be applied to the news, but Wonkette is on the scene to add 1-tenth the humor and none of the creativity of The Onion.).
The left knows its candidate is terrible, and has a poor track record to boot. It’s only strategy is to make Obama look better by comparison and to direct the conversation away from the poor policies and execution that are the hallmark of this administration. That the best they can do is to try to seize upon a non-candidate indicates sheer desperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)