Why is there no mention of President Obama’s strong opposition to an insurance mandate when he was just a primary candidate? Everything Romney has done, jobs he had 20 years ago, are all very relevant. But Obama’s history just fades from view as soon as it doesn’t look pretty anymore.
As I listen to the arguments about POR-care I am struck by how little concern about legal limits its backers have. It seems to me that the gist of their argument is “the government needs to regulate health care therefore anything it does in that area is Constitutional”. For instance, Walter Dellinger, the Duke law professor who supports the law, pointed out that the plaintiffs effectively made it clear that the only way to create national health insurance would be through a single-payer system. That’s not a legal argument, that’s a pure policy argument.
From the same article we have
As somebody who knows the policy issues, the hearing was incredibly frustrating to watch. Both judges and lawyers, on both sides, seemed not to understand the specifics of the health care market and why it would (or would not, depending on your legal philosophy) make the mandate constitutional.
Am I the only one who finds this point laughably obtuse? No economic feature of health care or specifics thereof can make the insurance mandate Constitutional or not and to think otherwise is to not understand law.
Other arguments are about cost shifting, free-riders, and other purely economic points. I think this is why the arguments are going badly before the Supreme Court because fundamentally they don’t make legal sense. I don’t think the POR axis grasped this because to them there is no limit to their power, only policy questions about what to do.
Gannett Wisconsin […] exposed 29 sitting judges in the state that signed petitions for the recall of Governor Scott Walker. Unfortunately, the scoop blew up in their face when they had to admit this weekend that nearly as many of their own reporters had signed the same petitions.
Given the issues of public-employee union reform that swirl around this recall effort, only a truly uninformed person could possibly argue that signing the petition was not a political act. That leaves Corrado and Gannett with the unenviable position of trying to determine whether these journalists are really that ignorant or just dishonest. [source]
Having known a number of journalists in my time, I would have no problem believing the “really that ignorant” option. One might wonder about the management as well for not suspecting just how likely this was to be true.
President Obama has named the generation under 40 years of age “generation 44.” The number 44 stands for 44th president, or in other words, Obama named the generation after.…himself. Surprised? [source]
Nobody’s surprised, Obama makes everything about him. I don’t think this sort of narcissism nearly as creepy as all of the people who embrace this cult of personality.
Some group at Harvard is trying to teach the students to be “sex positive”. Isn’t that like teaching young kids to be “sugar-positive”? Shades of Hey Skipper’s demographic crisis if college age people need that.
Via Althouse we have Walter Dellinger, former Solicitor General, trying to defend POR-care by admitting that the New Deal was socialist and that POR-care isn’t anything like that. The New Dealers get upset when you mention that, but this is another example of how they know it’s accurate and their bluster is just a defense mechanism.
Apparently Robert Fisk has been making stuff up for years and passing it off as journalism. Moreover, this was apparently well known among journalists. Yet despite that, Fisk was a renowned, award winning writer. I don’t think it’s unfair to judge a profession by the sort of people they openly laud as their best.
P.S. Here we have Nina Totenberg from NPR validating exactly what I think about Old Media —
TOTENBERG: The elite media will then glom onto this person, and everything he has ever done that might be slightly untoward or controversial will come out. [Italics mine, emphasis hers.] And he will never have had this kind of glare on him, and he will make gaffes. You’ve seen this all through the primary campaign. Everybody’s made gaffes. You have to get used to that. You have to grow into the job of being a national candidate. There’s no time to do that.
Exactly the game plane for Quayle and Palin. Not so much for Barack Obama. But that’s not bias.
It is a wonder of our current Administration and its stunning foreign policy expertise that they’ve managed to convince the Libyian Street we, the USA, are siding with the Caliphascists. That is truly a major change from the bad old days of the Bush Administration.
P.S. Things like this are perhaps a contributing factor.
“Barack Obama is not a good spokesman. He actually polarizes the debate,” said one person close to the White House who supports the health law [[POR-care]] [source]
In January 2010, two months before the bill came to a vote, Obama urged his fellow Democrats to muscle up and pass the bill — and that he would protect them by making the sale: “[T]hat’s why I’ll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain; about the arsenal of consumer protections; about the long-awaited stability that they’re going to begin to experience.” [source]
So the greatest orator of our age doesn’t dare go out and orate on his premier “accomplishment”. Meanwhile the People’s Vanguard in the MAL efforts have not been appreciated by their putative beneficiaries. Odd how that keeps happening, must just be bad luck. Or Fox News.
Woman: ”So you’re all for like, ‘yay, freedom,’ and all this stuff. And ‘yay, like pursuit of happiness.’ You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.”
Romney:”You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about.”
Via Hot Air an actual conservative response from Romney! That’s really the key difference for our current parties, the party of personal liberty, and the party of looting.
I have an article from my tab archive on the failure of the “Cornhusker Kickback” obtained by Senator Ben Nelson to insulate himself from the unpopularity of POR-care1. It failed. But I think it’s illustrative of the atomicity of the MAL in that Nelson and his advisers thought this kind of payoff would work. As the author points out, what’s the matter with Kansas (and Nebraska) is that the voters aren’t looting with both hands. The MAList perspective seems to be “governments are instituted among men so that the looting may be organized”.
1 Isn’t it so typical of the Potemkin Villages of the MAL that even as the inevitable popularity of POR-care was declared, Nelson felt it necessary to buy off his voters for supporting it?
to pay any price, bear any burden, to not let a Republican win. The wages of tribalism which never ends well.
Tim Noah buries the lede: Arguing that government policy can too affect income distribution, TNR‘s Tim Noah writes:If you omit government redistribution from the calculations in the previous paragraph then four countries that previously were more equal in incomes than the U.S.—Portugal, Italy, Israel, and Germany—become less equal than the U.S.
Wait. You mean that social-democratic, union-heavy, solidaristic Germany has worse income inequality, before taxes and transfers, than the cowboy capitalistic U.S., with its large underclass and out-of-control Wall Street greedheads? Don’t tell the narrative. …
Remember kids, results count — unless they dispute The Narrative.
Mediaite notes “Red Eye Panel On Al Qaeda’s Fox News Bashing: Sounds Like It Was Written By Media Matters!” which is clearly correct. Not surprising because Al Qaeda has been echoing Old Media talking points. One need only compare their original rhetoric with that after the 11 Sep attacks. The shift from the Caliphascist line to the MAL line of attack is clear. This is just more of the same parroting. But it makes you wonder why such groups find our home grown America / conservative bashing so superior to what they can create themselves.
Of all the things that have gone wrong with the Fisker Karma battery powered car, the question that haunts me is, why the subsidies for a $100K sports car? We’re spending tax money so that rich proglodytes can have cool cars? But it’s not really a surprise to those who understand how these things work, how regardless of rhetoric or intentions it almost always ends up captured by the well off or well connected. But some never learn.
I don’t want to wade far in to the debate on abortion, but I found this post to be seriously disturbing —
“I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds.
I understand the pro-life side, and I thought I understood the pro-choice side. But I can’t imagine what level of moral depravity you need to be pro-abortion. Are there anyone who is “pro-chemo-therapy”? I sure as heck would like chemo-therapy to be safe, legal, and rare even if I I would certainly use it myself or a loved one at need.
The author at Hot Air asks
“Safe, legal and rare” has always puzzled me. If life begins at conception and abortion takes the life of an innocent unborn baby, as I believe it does, then why should abortion be safe and legal? If life doesn’t begin at conception and abortion is just some sterile medical procedure to purge the body from some nonhuman parasitical something, then why should it be rare?
Beyond the analogy above, perhaps because we should have a little humility on the subject and not presume beyond any doubt our view is correct on such a contentious issue.
Let us take a minute to ponder the strength, moral authority, and wisdom of our current President.
What I’m preparing for is the flood of Black leaders lining up in October to lecture America that Obama’s upcoming defeat will be completely due to racist America.
Yes indeed, we can expect a veritable flood of propaganda there. How soon? Well the battlespace is already being prepared with little dog whistles — “Is there an innocent explanation for two new surveys that show his approval rating falling to ominously low levels?”. Because if there is no “innocent” explanation, we know what explanation will be presumed.
I had some recent dust ups on Facebook about Presidential candidate Rick Santorum over concerns that he is an incipient theocrat. What set me off is that these people freak out over the potential for Santorum to something theocratic like ban insurance coverage for contraception entirely, yet are blithely unconcerned about the present Administration creating the law and precedent that would let him do it. POR-care sets it up so that the HHS Secretary can simply make insurance coverage of contraception illegal. The Obama Administration’s non-recess appointments (in effect declaring that the Executive Branch gets to decide when the Senate is in session, not the actual Senate) enables a future Santorum to appoint who ever he wants to the position with Senate approval.
The only valid conclusion, it seems to me, is that such concerns are completely fabricated, and that the real issue is “my tribe vs. your tribe”. I don’t see how that’s resolved other than eventual violence.
Gas prices trigger Obama scramble — given this was an explicit goal of the Obama Administration energy policy how can they be scrambling now to deal with the backlash? Did they think no one would notice, or that the American Street would just agree that high energy prices were, in fact, good for them? Maybe it’s because of the collapse of the Warmenist Front, which they had presumed would cover this.
Given how our usual schedule is arranged around the noon hour, it is daylight savings time that makes sense, so we should just switch to that permanently and stop the flipping.
What struck me most about the Sandra Fluke episode was how the MAL once again picked a bizarrely inappropriate example for their propaganda efforts. Seriously to dramatize the need for mandated contraception coverage, they picked a 30 year old professional activist law student at one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation? Who likely expects to graduate and become part of the 1%? That’s the best they could do? That’s some bubble they’re living in.
P.S. Of all the lies Fluke said, her economic innumeracy struck me the most. According to the data I can find, medical insurance at her school is $1900 / year. If 3 years of contraception are $3k, that $1K/year or over half of the insurance premium. So Fluke expects either (1) a more than 50% cut in her medical expenses or (2) thinks it is obviously better to pay $2.9K / year in premiums instead of $1.9K for premiums and $1K for contraception. Neither seems of the quality of thought one should expect from a student on a scholarship at such a prestigious institution.
P.S. Best external comment — it takes two to tango, ask that other person to help out.
This is not an aberration, but the logical end result of affirmative action. Next step — race cards.
“Bill Bennet: “We need to have a single standard on this”””:http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/08/video-bennett-wonders-when-obama-will-give-back-mahers-million/ with regard to foul statements about people. That’s not going to happen because the MAL is utterly dependent on never being called to any standard, much less the ones they want to impose on conservatives.
I can’t help but think these are bicameral minds that have lost their voices.
Hair on fire head line of the week -
[13 year old caucasian student] Allen was a victim of a vicious racial attack last week in which two older black teens doused him with gasoline and set him alight, saying, “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.” [source]
I expect that any punishment for the older teens will be labeled racist oppression, discriminatory in effect if not intent especially after the nation wide publicity and hand wringing over this assault.
CNN is still running headline news about Rush Limbaugh’s comments because that’s obviously the most important story in these times, but when they have Bill “Palin is a c*nt” Maher slam on Limbaugh for his language, you just have to weep. How is that not straight up extreme partisanship?
The Prophet tells a tale of two profits:” And now, three years later — three years later, that bet is paying off — not just paying off for you, it’s paying off for America. Three years later, the American auto industry is back. (Applause.) GM is back on top as the number-one automaker in the world — (applause) — highest profits in its 100-year history. Chrysler is growing faster in America than any other car company. (Applause.) Ford is investing billions in American plants, American factories — plans to bring thousands of jobs back to America. (Applause.)”
And now?” [Oil] companies are making record profits right now — tens of billions of dollars a year. Every time you go to the gas tank or fill up your gas tank, they’re making money. Every time. Now, does anyone really think that Congress should give them another $4 billion this year? Of course not. It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And I am asking Congress — eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away. I want them to vote on this in the next few weeks.”
Cars good, fuel bad.
Just like “jobs good, business bad”. The basic concept of “consequences” seems to escape these people.