Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Great Moments In Political Strategizing | Main | Well I'm Planning To Party Like Its 1994 »

October 19, 2010

Comments

Jack is Back!

Since Kagan is recusing herself at a record pace for a new justice, is she eligible to hear Obamacare once it gets to the Supremes? If not, what is the dynamic with her out of the picture. Where does Kennedy stand on the Commerce Clause and mandates by Congress that effect individual rights and liberties? And if you can delete the individual mandate from the totality of the legislation does it make it less enforceable or manageable? Also, with a new Congress and Senate doesn't it cripple the selection process for any new Obama appointee to provide a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS?

Its my opinion that a new Congress instead of repealing the act can just no fund it and let it die a slow painless death.

Danube of Thought

I saw the VA attorney general on Greta last night, and I think he was a bit off on the severability issue. As I heard him, he said that since there was no severability clause, if the court held one or more provisions unconstitutional, he would then have to decide whether the balance of the law could stand as a coherent piece of legislation.

My recollection is that that is what the court has to do if there is a severability clause. If there isn't one, it's game over.

Danube of Thought

Kagan is recusing herself from cases in which she participated as Solicitor General. That shouldn't be an issue when Obamacare gets there.

The judicial confirmation process lies exclusively with the Senate. If the GOP has a majority, it can flat stop any nominee it doesn't like (but remember the ladies from Maine). If it is in the minority but has over forty seats it can filibuster a nominee. At that point the Dems might consider changing the Senate filibuster rule, which was the original "nuclear option," as I recall.

Kevin B

Nice bit of satire on the abortion and sexual proclivity issues Tom, but the problem is that as far as Pelosi/Reid and the rest ar concerned, wielding this sort of power over the proles is a very desirable feature, not an accidental bug.

The 'ruling elites' would love to have the power to switch procreation rights on and off at will, and to make any behaviour punishable or mandatory depending on the state's needs of the moment or the whim of the current ruler. Any study of totalitarian regimes of the past and present shows this to be so.

Unfortunately, satirising the leftist elites is an unrewarding business.

Charlie (Colorado)

But if pigs had wings, jihadists would fly them into buildings.

Good line.

Daryl Herbert

Under the current jurisprudence, the commerce clause provides unlimited power. It is the 4th Amendment, and others from the Bill of Rights, that limits the government.

JM Hanes

JiB:

"Its my opinion that a new Congress instead of repealing the act can just no fund it and let it die a slow painless death."

Alas, even Paul Ryan is warning that that's easy to say and hard to do.

Rob Crawford

Alas, even Paul Ryan is warning that that's easy to say and hard to do.

So they can repeal it or be repealed. Forcibly, if necessary.

"It's hard" is no excuse to refuse to remove a tyranny.

George Ditter

Mighty oaks from tiny acorns grow. In Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 case involving wheat quotas, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer could be penalized for exceeding his wheat quota when growing wheat for home consumption since that meant that he didn't have to buy in in the marketplaceand therefore impacted interstate commerce. When I first heard of that case, I wondered why I had never read a denunciation of its holding in all my years of reading "Mother Earth News" or "Organic Gardening" since it was clear that under its rationale you could be prohibited from putting up your own canned tomatoes. Oh well, libs have better things to worry about like the FBI, under the Patriot Act, investgating what books you check out of the library than to worry about whether under the Commerce Clause, the library can be shut down and you forced to buy books from Barnes and Noble.

JM Hanes

"The government lawyer tried to explain that Congress' right to regulate activity under the Commerce Clasue also gave them the right to regulate non-activity, i.e., the non-purchase of health insurance."

As I understand the underlying government case, whether explicitly argued in this instance or not, it's that opting out of health insurance is an economic decision which directly impacts economic activity, and thus falls under federal purview.

It seems to me that a great deal of unfettered federal overreach is a result of judicial rulings which have increasingly conflated direct and indirect causes & effects. This is as emblematic of Kelo as it is in other commerce clause opinions.

JM Hanes

Rob:

"Forcibly, if necessary."

That too, is more fancifully said than actually done.

 centralcal

I am sorry - anything that can be done by Congress, can be undone by Congress. I am not buying that we are stuck for all eternity with the crap that has been shoved down our throats these past 2 years.

Republicans better get their heads out of the sand. November 3rd, WE will be looking at them and expecting positive ACTION, based on the will of the people.

glasater

My health insurance expense has gone up the best part of twenty per cent starting about three months ago.
If HCR is repealed will my insurance cost go back down to the previous level three months back?
I don't think so.

Extraneus

Can you fix this kind of stuff by defunding it?

ObamaCare forces Boeing to reduce coverage for employees

I don't see the pragmatic argument against repeal. When repeal fails because of Obama's veto, the bulls-eye gets painted on him for all to see - right where it belongs.

Jeff

no buying insurance doesn't mean I am not participating in the health care market ...

Texas Mom 2010

They should wrap a repeal in with a free market and tort reform legislation... Then Obama would have to veto the repeal with the solution to actually lowering costs. Also add in alternatives like HCA that function like a 401K plan, what you don't use is saved towards future expenses. HCAs could be coupled with a lower cost catastrophic care high deductible plan. When you are responsible for the first $5000 of your families health care, you will make economical choices. Allow purchases of policies across state lines.
Pre-existing conditions will only be covered if a policy is purchased within a certain limited enrollment period, after that if you get sick and then try to get 'insurance' tough luck. You should have been responsible and skipped vacation or cable or cell phones, things that are a privilege. Otherwise, the responsible folks have to pay higher premiums so you can keep texting...

Rob Crawford

That too, is more fancifully said than actually done.

Then we're screwed, so why bother, right?

It's all too hard, all too much bother. May as well accept our yokes; so much easier than the struggle.

Rob Crawford

I don't see the pragmatic argument against repeal.

It's too hard.

Probably get you called names, too.

Boatbuilder

Centralcal--I do believe that you are absolutely right about the expectation of positive action. The exponential growth of government, and government spending has been advancing for decades, with only brief efforts (1994) to block the trend. Most Republicans and presumably Independents and somewhat rational Democrats grew increasingly alarmed as the Bush administration did little or nothing to control spending, and much to expand it; Obama has clearly brought matters to a head by pulling out all the stops.
Ryan, Christie and a number of others seem to get it; most don't seem to fully understand the true sentiment of the body politic. If the new congress doesn't work to seriously reverse the out-of control spending, they will be out--presumably by a third-party taking their votes. Whether that results in handing power to the tax- and- spend addicted dems or the replacement of the republicans by a new party is unknown, but the Republicans need to understand that business as usual won't do it.

George Ditter

Well to repeal it will need 66% of House and 66% of Senate, to override a veto.

Extraneus

Rush is hammering this compromise thing. I bet the R's planted this story to appeal to independents, calculating that they won't lose any conservatives at this stage.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

My recollection is that that is what the court has to do if there is a severability clause. If there isn't one, it's game over.

That's my understanding too.

I think Congress should repeal Obamacare, let Obama veto it and run on repealing Obama for the next 2 years - while defunding the bill.

Meanwhile they can work of tort reform and being able to buy insurance across state lines.

Extraneus

We don't need to override a veto. We need to take Obama out, and his veto will help that endeavor quite a bit. Getting everyone in Congress to vote on an override will help identify the next set of Dems to focus on in 2012, too.

Danube of Thought

I think the issue that is more likely than any other to give the SCt pause is that of whether there is any limit at all to the reach of congress's commerce clause power. It is fairly easy to argue that, while there is no precedent for it to reach economic "decisions" in the absence of any action, there are precedents that, if extended a bit, would allow this law to stand. The problem is that this slight extension would seem to erase any limit to this power.

George Ditter

"Obviously Congress can force people to save for their retirement by way of the Social Security tax, regardless of their own sense of an optimal lifetime saving strategy." That reminds me, I've always wanted to visit my personal stash of money at the Social Security vault.

Captain Hate

the Republicans need to understand that business as usual won't do it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't understand it.

Boatbuilder

CH--So am I. I am worried that they will take the November results as as a mandate to return to 2005. They are that clueless and insulated.

Jack is Back!

At the LUN is a quick test for trolls and even members of the JOMOs tribe. For me, Libertarian, but I knew that going in.

squaredance

Just tack a repeal on every amendment.

let him veto them all.

Dave (in MA)

Jane, Deval just came to where I work to do a town hall at lunchtime. They announced it last week and asked people to sign up for it because of the limited space in the meeting hall. 10 minutes after the meeting started they sent out e-mail saying that they'd appreciate it if anyone who was available would come down to the meeting now.
This, in as moonbat-rich an environment as you can get. Harbinger?

Mike Giles

"the Republicans need to understand that business as usual won't do it."

"I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't understand it."

But many do - and are fighting desperately to return to the status quo.

Incidentally. In a conflict between the actual written word of the Constitution (an all powerful Commerce Clause) and a "penumbra" (abortion rights), who wins?

Captain Hate

For me, Libertarian,

Ditto

JM Hanes

"Then we're screwed, so why bother, right?"

Nope. Paul Ryan was making it pretty clear that you're not going to kill off healthcare by simply trying to defund it. The idea of 'forcible' repeal as the next best option is the feel-good conceit here which avoids the hard questions of reform altogether.

Rob Crawford

Paul Ryan was making it pretty clear that you're not going to kill off healthcare by simply trying to defund it. The idea of 'forcible' repeal as the next best option is the feel-good conceit here which avoids the hard questions of reform altogether.

What's the worth of further deform if the abomination is left standing?

Repeal, then real reform. Otherwise, no dice, because we'll be stuck with Obamacare PLUS another layer of contradictory blather and pork-barreling.

Sorry -- we fell for the "give the statists X and then they'll give you Y" multiple times during the '80s and '90s. Give them amnesty and they'll enforce the borders -- except that second part never happened. Raise taxes and they'll get control of spending -- except that second part never happened.

No more, not again, I'm not fricking Charlie Brown, thank you.

Clarice

Two out of three courts which have heard the matter have refused to grant the govt's motions to dismiss. I think the Va court will be the first to declare it unconstitutional and the Fla court will follow soon after. As it makes its slow way to the SCOTUS, states will be under increasing pressure to not fund the mandates Congress has placed on this. If Congress also refuses to funds the necessary bureaucratic framework for the 2014 roll out, and at the same time passes a repeal and reform bit of legislation, the Act will be stalled. If Obama vetoes this effort, Congress should again and again pass it.

And each time he vetoes it, further cutbacks elsewhere should roll in--no money for czars; no money for the consumer watchdog he manipulated to get in the dept of Treasury, cutbacks on the WH budget, War by other means.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--That reminds me, I've always wanted to visit my personal stash of money at the Social Security vault.--

Heh. There's a large stash of paper there alright, but it says I.O.U. not in God We Trust.

Clarice

As for TM' s point about the refusal to regulate sexual conduct, that is beyond debate. From the refusal to close the bath houses in SF when they were the known vectors of the disease's spread to this moment, the govt has refused to take reasonable and necessary steps to deal with risky sexual behavior. Compare Mayor B's draconian measures against smoking with his do nothing about risky gay behavior.

Danube of Thought

I think the GOP leadership should be hard at work--right now--on its own healthcare legislation. Market-oriented, with plenty of latitude for each state to set its own procedures. And the first line of the bill should be "H.R. WXYZ [Obamacare] is repealed in its entirety."

anduril

Let's think about campaign contributions for a bit. Until you actually take a look at who gives money, how much and to whom, it's difficult to get a flavor for how our political system, um, works. And then, of course, you have to consider, what do contributors get for their money?

Let's look at what the smart money does, as an example. Say, a Washington, DC, law firm. Their money's got to be pretty smart, right? Apparently it's common now for law firms to form PACs, to funnel contributions, just like big Wall Street firms do. To take a random example, there's the VAN NESS FELDMAN, P.C. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. Now DC lawyers must be smart operators, so who did this firm give their money to for the 2010 cycle? Lots of Democrats, for sure, but some GOPers, too.

For example, although Dems did better from this PAC, Lisa Murkowski of all people was the biggest beneficiary overall:

MURKOWSKI, LISA Republican AK $1,000 04/13/2009
MURKOWSKI, LISA Republican AK $2,000 06/08/2009
MURKOWSKI, LISA Republican AK $1,000 07/15/2009
MURKOWSKI, LISA Republican AK $1,000 10/05/2009
MURKOWSKI, LISA Republican AK $1,000 02/01/2010

Ouch. But apparently none of the other AK candidates have much to offer this particular law firm/PAC--no seniority? Who knows. But clearly Lisa had something to offer that all the Dems didn't. I'll bet she worked pretty well with the Dems that ran the place. So, maybe not so dumb, after all, to put your money on her.

They backed some other losers, too, and certainly some that I sincerely hope will be losers:

BAUCUS, MAX Democrat MT $1,000 02/23/2009
BAYH, EVAN Democrat IN $1,000 06/02/2009
BOREN, DAVID Democrat OK $1,000 06/15/2009
CONYERS, JOHN Democrat MI $1,000 11/10/2009
DEFAZIO, PETER Democrat OR $1,000 07/13/2009
DORGAN, BYRON Democrat ND $1,000 04/22/2009
DORGAN, BYRON Democrat ND $1,000 05/20/2009
INOUYE, DANIEL Democrat HI $1,000 10/22/2009

Oh, look! That haughty French speaking Senator from Massachussets got some money:

KERRY, JOHN F Democrat MA $1,000 02/16/2010
KLOBUCHAR, AMY Democrat MN $1,000 02/25/2009
LANDRIEU, MARY Democrat DC $1,000 06/15/2009

Ooo! Talk about a bad investment, this one looks like a real loser. I hope they got their money's worth while she lasted:

LINCOLN, BLANCHEDemocrat AR $1,000 02/27/2009
LINCOLN, BLANCHEDemocrat AR $1,000 06/25/2009
LINCOLN, BLANCHEDemocrat AR $1,000 03/08/2010
LINCOLN, BLANCHEDemocrat AR $1,000 07/29/2009
LINCOLN, BLANCHEDemocrat AR $500 11/04/2009

Now this is a guy I really can't stand. Did you know his middle name is Adalbert? Yep, it is. How did a guy with a last name like McDermott ever wind up with a middle name like that? One of life's mysteries:

MCDERMOTT, JAMES Democrat WA 07 11/10/2009
MCDERMOTT, JAMES Democrat WA 07 05/27/2009

I dunno about this one--may not pan out:

MURRAY, PATTY Democrat WA $1,000 11/17/2009
MURRAY, PATTY Democrat WA $1,000 05/05/2009

This looks like a pretty safe bet, but, gosh, hold your nose:

PELOSI, NANCY Democrat CA $500 11/10/2009

Shaky, this one looks pretty shaky:

REID, HARRY Democrat NV $2,000 01/12/2010

Well, ya win some ya lose some:

SPECTER, ARLEN Democrat PA $1,000 11/10/2009
SPECTER, ARLEN Democrat PA $1,000 12/03/2009
WYDEN, RONALD Democrat OR $1,000 02/05/2009
WYDEN, RONALD Democrat OR $1,000 06/08/2009

I suppose it's possible that all the attorneys who contributed to this PAC--and all the other PACs like this one--believe passionately in all the candidates they contributed to. Right. It's possible. OTOH, the way it probably works is that if you want to voice an opinion to an elected official who's involved in some area that interests you, you'd better be sure to contribute before you make that phone call.

Now, you're probably saying, just how smart can this "smart money" be if it goes to some of these losers? I'm gonna bet that next election cycle you might see similar levels of donations, but a pretty different spread. It's the "don't count your chickens till they're hatched" philosophy. It's a two way street, after all: get yourself elected and on a relevant committee before you come asking for money, buster. Hey, it's how we get the best elected officials money can buy.

Mark Folkestad

Texas Mom, sorry to nitpick, but a cell phone is not uniformly a luxury for some of us. I had to make a lot of painful decisions on finances over the last few years, and one of them was to eliminate my landline phone. The best and cheapest option for me was my cell phone. Now I've sold my home and I'm staying with friends at the start of a transition period where my only option is my cell phone. In roughly a year I will be resettled on an island in SE Alaska, where I simply will not have access to landline phone service. I agree with the general thrust of your comments, but I felt the need to correct one point.

Neo

Yes, but is ObamaCare "too big to fail" ?

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--In roughly a year I will be resettled on an island in SE Alaska, where I simply will not have access to landline phone service.--

But you will have cellular?
Up there I just figured they laid an underwater string to the island with a soup can on each end. :)

Army of Davids

A useful tidbit to remember in the push for a foreclosure moratorium.

Fannie and Freddie own MERS.

I R A Darth Aggie

So...Congress can regulate hookers, too?

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

This, in as moonbat-rich an environment as you can get. Harbinger?

WOW WOW WOW

Dave, you made my day.

Did you hear Christie is appearing with Baker on the 24th? It's free, and in Melrose. I bet it is packed.

Dave (in MA)

Driving in to work today along a different route than usual I noticed several Bielat yard signs in Canton and Norwood - not even in Barney's district. I guess I'm not alone in wishing he could vote against that POS.

 centralcal

Apologies, I am at work and cannot follow the conversation flow in a timely manner.

However, I wanted to point out that Rush announced a few weeks ago, and touched on it briefly today, that he has talked to a Republican(s) insider (not sure if more than one) who told him that they have NO plans to go forward with much of what they are claiming they will do during the campaign season.

We are going to have to keep the pressure up on our side of the aisle, no matter how good the outcome of this election.

Janet

I guess I'm not alone in wishing he could vote against that POS.

You are not alone...there are people as far away as Arlington, Virginia wishing that.

Clarice

Per Fox, early voting up by more than 50% over 2008. Plurality of voters are white men. Fox projects a record-breaker. Early voting indicates Repubs are fired-up and Dems are lagging.(Post from FR)

Dave (in MA)

Janet, you're right. I guess that was a dumb way of putting it. I think it's probably a worldwide phenomenon.

Locomotive Breath

"Obviously Congress can force people to save for their retirement by way of the Social Security tax, regardless of their own sense of an optimal lifetime saving strategy."
=======
Social Security is not a savings account or the amount that you get when you retire would be somehow proportional to the amount that you put in while you were working. It is not.

JM Hanes

JiB:

I'll show you mine....
Political Quiz

Clarice:

"As it makes its slow way to the SCOTUS, states will be under increasing pressure to not fund the mandates Congress has placed on this."

That is so key. I know I must sound like a broken record at this point, but I've long been convinced that truly lasting push back against the Feds has got to come from the states, regardless of where the national GOP ends up. That is the real, fundamentally conservative position, and its importance is being proven out by Governors and State Attorneys General right in front of us.

Washington politics and grand solutions are seductive, but its the folks manning trenches and pushing for constitutional change at state levels who are currently making the most difference. Lucky are those whose state constitution now protect them from Kelo! The tea party movement has had a tremendously beneficial, hopefully paradigm shifting, impact on local activism.

Folks are jittery about the how much the new Congress will actually be able to change the status quo for good reason. Even if new members don't get sucked into the DC machine, it only takes one Congress to undo the last. That doesn't mean that national elections aren't incredibly important, but structural changes at the state level can be effected -- and adapted -- more quickly and are more likely to survive than Conservative control of the hill.

Sue

If you say maybe on all of the questions, you are a smack dab in the middle centrist.

I am a right of center libertarian. I would have thought I was a conservative.

OldTimer

RE: Obamacare..

Is there an historical incidence of Congress writing and passing *new* legislation that specifically "superseded" an existing law, rendering the superseded law dead.....as in DEAD....?

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--So...Congress can regulate hookers, too?--

Sure, they're called the House and Senate Ethics committees.

Janet

I was conservative...red dot was outer edge smack dab in the middle between libertarian & conservative. I guess that puts me on the fringe of the chart!

JM Hanes

Sue:

"If you say maybe on all of the questions, you are a smack dab in the middle centrist."

Maybe Rick is right to refer to such folks as the muddle. :-)

Extraneus

JMH, you posted a link, probably a couple of years ago, with a great political-leaning questionnaire. If I remember it right, it was much more detailed than the one upthread.

Btw, Darrel Issa really screwed up on Rush's show today. He called in because he was the only Republican quoted by name in today's articles about how the R's need to compromise with Obama. Guess he was getting calls to his office after Rush mentioned that. Anyway, during an answer to one of Rush's questions, Issa started talking about House rules, and how "We're going to have open debate," or something like that, and Rush let him have it. ("The American people don't care about House procedures, Congressman. And they don't care about open debates. They want Obama stopped. Do you understand that?!" I'm just paraphrasing.)

I'm sure it'll be posted on Rush's website tonight or whenever they update that, but it wasn't very polished or confidence-building.

Janet

Open debate...yeah right. That means the Dems will talk & talk & talk...
The open debate in the Senate had Al Franken telling Joe Lieberman he was done...no 30 seconds to finish.
The Dems rob, maim, cheat, & steal to get their agenda passed...while the Republicans politely say they welcome open debate. :(

hit and run

JMH:
I'll show you mine....

I was http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/07/jlist-heroes.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e20133f2a130d0970b#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e20133f2a130d0970b>longing for the old Political Compass chart on Q-blog back in June...

If only to expunge the heretics in our midst!

Janet

Where the "smack dab" were the rest of you JOMers?

Danube of Thought

I think that if either court rules it unconstitutional, the victorious state(s) could immediately get an injunction against any further implementation pending a ruling be the appropriate appellate court, which ought to bollix things up nicely.

hit and run

back in June...

Or July,now that I look more closely,but who's counting.

Extraneus:
JMH, you posted a link, probably a couple of years ago, with a great political-leaning questionnaire. If I remember it right, it was much more detailed than the one upthread.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/>The Political Compass!

OK,let's get on with identifying the apostates and dealing with them the JOM Way.

Sue

JMH,

That is what I was thinking. Maybe gets you muddled.

Sue

Janet,

Are you making fun of me? ::grin::

Sue

Ex,

I missed who he was talking to but heard the part you are paraphrasing. I wondered who he was smacking around.

Army of Davids

Fannie and Freddie execs were "Friends of Angelo" too.

Remember Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick

Watching B of A (Countrywide) lawsuits fly around MERS and the foreclosure procedures.

Janet

red dot was outer edge smack dab in the middle between libertarian & conservative.

No Sue, I was making fun of ME! You used the term first, and then I did too without realizing it. I'm a plagiarizer!

Mark Folkestad

Ignatz, yes there will be excellent cellular service on my island. Unfortunately, since Verizon sold its Alaska operation to a competitor, I will be stuck with either AT&T or AP&T (Alaska Power & Telephone). Only AT&T will give me coverage when I visit the Lower 48. Actually, funny you should wisecrack about the soup can on a string. I've been both groaning and laughing about the Progresso soup commercials featuring that. If you didn't catch my wrap-up of an earlier thread, where you and Old Lurker and others had questions about my off-grid power, visit www.absak.com and explore the site. It has an excellent page that shows how to integrate PV, wind, micro-hydro and gasoline/propane/diesel generator with a bank of batteries and an inverter. There is a lot of great information there, beyond the listings for things they sell.

Clarice

Expunging heretics! Oh, goody..My favorite pastime, Where are those darned thumbscrews,Igor?

Rob Crawford

h&r -- the problem with that quiz is there's no "that's none of my business" and "WTF are you talking about" options.

But here's where it placed me:

Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21

I suspect I'd score higher on libertarian if there were a "none of my business" option, since I tended to split the difference on a lot of the social questions.

Sue

Janet,

I'm teasing. I wouldn't care if you did. My use of slang is something I do on purpose... sometimes.

bgates

I was scored as an extreme libertarian.

"You know, maybe extremism in defense of liberty is nothing to get wee-wee'd up about. I don't know."
-stuff Barry Goldwater would have said, if he'd been as eloquent as Barry Dunham

anduril

So...Congress can regulate hookers, too?

So, who's worse, then: the hookers (Congress) or the johns--those who get rich by paying and playing?

Sue

The Kos guy and Gwen Ifill, PBS, are making fun of Palin for saying not to party like it's 1773 just yet. I guess they think nothing happened in 1773, or something. Not sure why they, as smart as they are, don't know when the Boston Tea Party was.

Clarice

And in DE they are making fun of O'Donell for saying there is no separation of church and state phrase in the constitution while ignoring that Coons couldn't name the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Jack is Back!

JMH,

It almost looks like mine.

I was hoping Bubu, Cleo, Anduril and, if she can be found in Hit's basement, Sylvia would be so kind as to reveal how deeply statist they really are we'd have a good idea who should be target practice for Clarice's pistolas.

Rob Crawford

No, Clarice, they're making fun of O'Donnell for not bowing to the orthodoxy.

Sue

Meantime, they, as in liberals, have no idea where the right to bear arms comes from and what the 10th amendment was all about.

MarkO

From B. Odious on down, this crew has no need for the Constitution.

RichatUF

OldTimer-

CHCA. The Catastrophic Health Care Act was passed and repealed at nearly light speed because it was so unpopular. It is also worth pointing put that there was a telephone service tax to pay for the Spanish American War that was finally repealed-in 2006-after we finally beat those sneaky Spainiards.

Sue

Rich,

That's funny.

Melinda Romanoff

Up against the wall, redneck, mutha...

Extraneus

Southern California Mayor Resigns After Purse-Snatching Arrest

A suburban Southern California mayor has resigned days after his arrest for a purse-snatching and wild ride through streets with a woman clinging to his sport utility vehicle.

San Gabriel Mayor Albert Y.M. Huang says in an e-mail Tuesday to The Associated Press that he's confident his reputation will be restored but he's decided to resign because of overwhelming media attention. KFI radio was first to report his resignation.

Investigators say the 35-year-old mayor and a woman were squabbling outside a restaurant on Friday when Huang fled in his SUV with her purse and the woman clinging to the side of the vehicle. Speeds reached 45 mph over more than a quarter-mile before the SUV was stopped.

Huang was arrested and booked for investigation of felony assault, felony robbery and misdemeanor battery.

Name that party?

Jim Miller

That libertarian propaganda diagram with the two axes has amused me for years. (And I have been disappointed by how many people have been taken in by it.) I suppose I will eventually get around to writing a post explaining its flaws -- but not before the election.

(Hint for those who find the previous paragraph confusing: Are those two axes the only possible axes? Are there people who would evaluate political choices using very different axes?)

Extraneus

Heh. Pelosi won't run again for Speaker.

Dave (in MA)

The minority party doesn't get to run for Speaker.

Neo

Call in the MythBusters

anduril

I was hoping ... Anduril ... would be so kind as to reveal how deeply statist they really are we'd have a good idea who should be target practice for Clarice's pistolas.

1. Statist? Huh?

2. You seemed to have missed it--people here are afraid of me, most of all Clarice. She's welcome to do whatever she wants with her pistolas--it's certainly no concern of mine--but you people are afraid to engage with any of the ideas I offer up.

3. Jack, Back in you hole.

anduril

The minority party doesn't get to run for Speaker.

What a moron. Running and getting elected are two different things.

caro

I am Milton Friedman(in my dreams!)

RichatUF

And the New York Times is out propping up the Obama Administration again. Obama cut taxes too. They should get together with Kurtz and compare notes on how not to prop the administration up. "Making Work Pay" was a refundable tax credit, distributed through changes in the with holding tables, and the same sort of Kensyian stimulus that the Bush Administration got beat over the head with "you can't even buy a muffle with it" during his first round of tax cuts. But never fear, the NYT is going to make sure that everyone knows that Obama cut your taxes.

Yeah, my pumpkin pie is done!

DebinNC

Obama is so spooked by the Prez is Muslim "myth" that he's cancelled a visit to The Golden Temple during his India trip, a visit American Sikhs were ecstatic about last week, because being shown wearing a turban horrifies him.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

A little rare earth Smoot-Hawley anyone?

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--You seemed to have missed it--people here are afraid of me--

Stupid bores confuse indifference with fear.
Smart bores pretend to.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--visit www.absak.com and explore the site--

I bookmarked it Mark. Thanks for the link.
Almost all the properties I buy are off the grid and a lot of them usually have some type of cabin and spring.

Extraneus

What a crappy article. They never say what rare earth minerals are, or what products they're used for, except "diverse products including large wind turbines and guided missiles."

Porchlight

I want Pelosi to stay in as minority leader so as to encourage infighting among the Dems.

Plus, her face as one of the faces of the party will only serve to remind voters of why they wanted Dems to lose the majority in the first place.

centralcal

Sue: Just got back from lunch and saw the Markos and Ifill tweets. What a hoot!

Gwen looks painfully stupid and her "stand down" tweet is even worse. I love when liberals not only step in it, but then play with it too.

Porchlight

OT, I just saw a Fire Nancy Pelosi sticker (along with a Donna Campbell sticker - Lloyd Doggett's opponent here in TX-25) on a truck right here in The People's Republic of South Austin. Good times.

It's going to be a little sad when the run-up to this election is over.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame