Team Obama announces that their guy will be eeking re-election and needs your cash.
I'm pretty excited about their slogan - "We Are The BS We've Been Waiting For" should have even more appeal than "Hope You Didn't Expect Change" or "Keep The Change (We Want Your Folding Stuff)". It's just too bad that "The Violent Torpedo of Truth" has been taken.
Eric Holder kicks off the campaign with the announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in Gitmo, not Manhattan. This must have been the comic highlight of his opening monologue:
"The prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his co-conspirators should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points," he said.
No, we wouldn't expect the whole military commission/Gitmo thing to be about political point-scoring. Sure, President Obama has reversed course on most of the Bush-bashing done by Candidate Obama so some of us may suspect cheap political oportunism, but it's time to look forward.
FOUR MORE YEARS: The people's choice is trouncing reality.
"Give Us All Your Change"
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 05, 2011 at 10:23 AM
?Nice little country you have here -- shame if something happened to it."
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 05, 2011 at 10:23 AM
"Vote Early, Vote Often"
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 05, 2011 at 10:23 AM
Okay, so the last one is an old standard....
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 05, 2011 at 10:24 AM
The Ed Schultz favorite -- "Voting for someone else would be unpatriotic. Stop laughing, I mean it."
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 05, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Something for everyone, the pre-Inauguration Obama and the post-Inauguration Bush clone.
=============
Posted by: Bring Bush! Who needs him, we got two Obamas. | April 05, 2011 at 10:25 AM
So who's gonna get Joe's spot just in front of the hind wheels?
=============
Posted by: What blunderbuss? | April 05, 2011 at 10:31 AM
How about "Obama's the One". It is so him, and It worked for Nixon in 1968
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 05, 2011 at 10:31 AM
A Michelle Approved Vegetable in Every Pot, and a Government Motors Hybrid in Every Garage.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 05, 2011 at 10:33 AM
aaarghhh!
Posted by: glenda | April 05, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Paul Ryan is unveiling his budget on Fox AWS.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 05, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Having Holder kick off the campaign may have been a mistake. If you saw Debbie Burlingame on Fox this morning, she certainly thinks so. She was justifiably indignant at the performance of The One and Holder and was particularly worried that Holder's remarks yesterday were a signal to the "human rights" community to begin trashing the military tribunal system.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 05, 2011 at 10:39 AM
A Michelle Approved Vegetable in Every Pot, and a Government Motors Hybrid in Every Garage.
Very good! Hah!
Posted by: Janet the Lion of Arlington | April 05, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Justice Black's concurring opinion indicates no such thing. The case involved the right to a jury trial (not citizenship), and the view expressed by Black was that the 14th Amendment should be read as incorporating the entire Bill of Rights under its Due Process Clause.
It is quite remarkable what crackpots will attempt to do with the language of judicial opinions.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 10:56 AM
I predict Obama's 2012 campaign will largely ignore the Republican nominee and instead concentrate on running against the 2008 Obama campaign.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 05, 2011 at 10:59 AM
But Team Boehner flipped the script last night and came up with an audacious counter offer. Rather than prorated cuts of $2 billion a week in exchange for continuing resolutions, Boehner’s budget team is offering up a $12 billion slash in exchange for just one week of continued operations.
…
Now, the three-day clock that Democrats believed would trap Boehner creates a scheduling problem for Obama. Unless Democrats want to have to vote down a $12 billion cuts plan and shut down the government, they need to come up with an offer that Boehner likes today.
Posted by: Neo | April 05, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Have stocks? VP is Little Miss Sunshine today.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 05, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Obama 2012: Because the country can't survive another learning curve
Posted by: MayBee | April 05, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Obama '12
He's Not Some Old White Dude
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 05, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Neo,
That Boehner is pretty smart.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 05, 2011 at 11:18 AM
"Keep your Change. Send us the Folding Money"
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 05, 2011 at 11:21 AM
All this back-and-forth about whether to cut $33 billion or $61 billion or whatever is a really marginal side-show. What dwarfs it in importance is what Paul Ryan is proposing.
I have real doubts that an electoral majority in this country has the stomach for it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who believed in this country?
Saw a car yesterday with a "Thank you, President Bush" bumper sticker.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 11:27 AM
A caller to Rush last week had a good idea. She said that if the Democrats object to $30B in cuts, the Republications should come back eith $60B.
If they object to that, come back with $90B. Etc.
Eventually, the Democrats might get the hint.
Of course, this requires Republicans who don't acquiesce to the principle of playing by Dem rules.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 11:29 AM
WEll we need to start that campaign DOT. Have you decided what tea party you will attend on 4-15?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 05, 2011 at 11:31 AM
A little ray of sunshine:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress. Just 22% say their views are closest to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2011 at 11:34 AM
DoT, do you not read the links before you comment on them? You have missed the significance.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Obama 2012 slogans-
bgates had some gems yesterday on the Google thread.
You can also search Twitter for #Obama2012slogans and find some great ones, like these from Iowahawk, which I can't help reproducing in near entirety, they're so awesome:
I Finally Got Some of That Experience You Were Bitching About
You Have My Word On It: Three Wars, Tops
I've Made Sensible Reductions In My Golf Handicap
I Had a 3.8 GPA at Harvard
A Second Term Will Make a Great Topic For My 4th Autobiography
I'm an Acquired Taste
Confident Smugness For An Uncertain World
Ask Me About Low-Cost Rental Mobs For Your Next Annual Job Review
Give Me a Second Chance, And I'll Prove You Are Worthy of Me
Admit It, You've Got Morbid Curiosity About What I'll Do Next
No Matter What Crisis I Cause, I Will Remain Serenely Above It
You Can't Fool All the People All The Time, So Shoot For 50.1%
Hold My Chardonnay and Watch This
Now With Gravitas-Enhancing Gray Temples
and my favorite:
I Came Here To Kick Ass and Chew Arugula, and I've Got Plenty of Arugula
Posted by: Porchlight | April 05, 2011 at 11:39 AM
I have real doubts that an electoral majority in this country has the stomach for it.
Me too. The number of voters dependent on government is perilously close to the number of those keeping government afloat.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 05, 2011 at 11:40 AM
You have missed the significance.
I read the link, and I read the Duncan opinion. It has no significance.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 11:42 AM
How about:
Doing a job to America that an American wouldn't do.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 11:42 AM
All this back-and-forth about whether to cut $33 billion or $61 billion or whatever is a really marginal side-show. What dwarfs it in importance is what Paul Ryan is proposing.
True, but per Ryan, he is working together with Boehner on this. Ryan is not trying to be like Rand Paul in saying "these guys are playing tiddlywinks, you should be taking my advice." The plan is small ball first, then the big stuff.
I have real doubts that an electoral majority in this country has the stomach for it.
So do I, but the pain will come sooner or later.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 05, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Obama 2012
Scope-Unlimited Kinetic Militant Governmental Action
Posted by: hit and run | April 05, 2011 at 11:48 AM
One of the Repub Senators (or 'trixes - actually would be great if it were one of the twins - ain't gonna happen, I know) needs to go onto the floor of the Senate and push back hard against the recent Reid/Schumer "extreme", Cowboy poetry, "starve granny" rhetoric. Doesn't really matter which one, as long as he can string 4-5 well-formed sentences together and deliver it with some passion that demonstrates that they "get it" - it being the dire circumstances the Republic is in and coming into. The freshmen, Rubio and Paul, have already demonstrated they are capable. In someways, it would be better coming from someone in leadership, presenting it partially as a mea culpa for his formerly errant spending. Maybe a joint presentation with Tom Coburn.
anyway, DoT is correct, and a lot more selling needs to be done.
Posted by: Hugh Dudgeon | April 05, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Fore! More Years
Posted by: Neo | April 05, 2011 at 11:52 AM
One of the busiest weeks of the year for us, but the news seems to be accelerating out of control. Petraeus to CIA? Really? Panetta to DoD? The AG having a temper tantrum on national television; a political hack as national Security Advisor; floating the name of a human rights hack like Samantha Power as SecState? come on?
The latter wrote that the genocides in Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda occurred because governments averted their eyes. I guess Hitler and Himmler and Eichmann and Pol Pot and and the Grand Vizier had nothing to do with the establishment and execution of state policy.
In Europe, the talk is of Ireland's impending implosion and various countries hiving off of the Euro.
In China, 30-40% of the workers who went home for lunar new year failed to return despite wage increases mandated by local governments augmented by market driven increases that boosted wages 20-25%. Companies are looking elsewhere rapidly. The 25% increase in the value of the RMB is a double whammy event, along with skyrocketing commodities prices.
Naw, nothing could go wrong. Remain calm. All is well.
Posted by: matt | April 05, 2011 at 11:53 AM
I'm not a praying man. On the other hand, I'm praying for Prosser in Wisconsin.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I liked the way Steve Sailer laughed off Michael Isikoff's daft notion that Newt Gingrich could get in trouble with Evangelicals for taking Sheldon Adelson's gambling derived millions:
I guess you could say this is one of those situations in which the end justifies the means. < /punning>
Posted by: anduril | April 05, 2011 at 11:57 AM
As gasoline prices soar, every republican in the country needs to repeat, until the idiots get it, drill baby drill. Dear gawd, I'm sick of hearing how it will take 10 years for drilling to be of benefit to us. 10 years later.
Posted by: Sue | April 05, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Most of the political maneuvering is not over the dollar amounts of this year cuts, but the RIDERS, which is the means by which Republicans are proposing to defund PP for instance.
Its clear the Republicans will get at least one, that is a prohibition on the EPA usurping the authority of Congress to legislate on emissions of CO2.
Posted by: Gmax | April 05, 2011 at 11:59 AM
matt, why didn't the Chinese workers return to work?
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Fine.
This is what I gathered from the link. Justice Black ,to make a determination of what the 14th amendment meant, with regard to the case in front of him, made this statement:
If we are to believe Black made his decision based on the meaning as defined by the authors of the amendment are we then supposed to ignore any other definitions given to us by those same authors?
Here is what Howard said on the floor during debate of the 14th:
And here is what Bingham said regarding Natural Born:
--“ It is quite remarkable what crackpots will attempt to do with the language of judicial opinions.”--
I find it far more remarkable when the language is dismissed.
I guess it is far eaiser to rely on insults.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 12:05 PM
One of the Repub Senators (or 'trixes - actually would be great if it were one of the twins - ain't gonna happen, I know) needs to go onto the floor of the Senate and push back hard against the recent Reid/Schumer "extreme", Cowboy poetry, "starve granny" rhetoric.
Would that one of them would play on the Senate floor the recording of Schumer talking about the instructions he was given about using the word "extreme," not realizing the reporters were listening in.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 12:07 PM
"I guess it is far eaiser to rely on insults."
It's better still to rely on an understanding of statutory, constitutional and judicial interpretation. Without such an understanding, there is no limit to the absurdity of the conclusions that can be reached.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 12:18 PM
How does Black's statement get interpreted properly?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Cheap political opportunism by Obama and the Holder crowd? Say it ain't so Joe!
That's a cue for Joe Scarborough to say that it "ain't so", and like a good little lapdog, he'll answer the cue.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | April 05, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Arizona Sheriff Questions Napolitano’s Claim That Border Is More Secure Than Ever
This certainly explains that recent story about federal border/immigration agents being told not to make arrestsPosted by: Neo | April 05, 2011 at 12:24 PM
The natural born topic might die if you folks would stop responding to it.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Neo:
Fore! More Years
That one's actually Obama-approved:
Posted by: hit and run | April 05, 2011 at 12:26 PM
This certainly explains that recent story about federal border/immigration agents being told not to make arrests
Similarly, we can make crime go down by telling the cops to spend more time in the donut shops.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 12:26 PM
From Iraq Vets for Congress--
A great example is Lt. Col. Allen West (FL-22). Yesterday the House unanimously approved a bill sponsored by the battle-tested Army officer that would cut the Defense Department's printing costs by $35.7 million.
Said West "We all still rely on paper. But I do not understand why we need examples of these highly expensive glossy color briefing slides and slick books that DOD sends over here."
West’s bill passed by a vote of 393 to 0. It cuts the Pentagon's proposed $357-million printing costs for the next fiscal year by 10 percent, or $35.7 million.
A simple, common sense idea by IVC’s Allen West just saved taxpayers a bundle.
IVC’s mission is to simultaneously keep Allen West and those like him in Congress while electing more honorable military veterans who will fight taxes and spending with the same tenacity and determination they demonstrated when fighting our nation’s enemies.
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2011 at 12:28 PM
In all of the discussions about what factors may influence Obama's 2012 chances, no one seems to mention the debt and the deficit. I think if this clown insists on doing nothing significant in the next 18 months, I think he'll have a real problem.
Turnout in Wisconsin may approach that of last November, per FNC.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 12:33 PM
wow--I hope that turnout is good for Prosser.
DoT gas is going up, food is going up, people still can' sell their houses...and he just backed off Gitmo and the trials and now Libya. What more does i ake o persuade people?
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Obama will run against the specter of how bad a Republican would make it.
Posted by: MayBee | April 05, 2011 at 12:39 PM
MayBee, Specter is a bad Republican.
Posted by: MarkO | April 05, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Jeez--even the effete, impudent snob David Brooks recognizes Ryan's proposal for what it is, and has a number of nice things to say about it. He also suggests that it poses an acid test for the man with the sharp crease.
What would Reinhold Niebuhr say about it?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 12:48 PM
He'll blame all of his failures on the "mess" he was "left" with, but if the Republicans nominate someone with the stones to go after Obama, his days are numbered.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 05, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Neo,
Shouldn't it read: Fore! More Years of Blaming Bush?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 05, 2011 at 12:50 PM
It seems they held off on the budget showdown until the re-election announcement.
Posted by: Elliott | April 05, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Doris Kearns Goodwin on Fox talking about Obama's reelection chances (good!) without mentioning what garbage her fawning over Obama's "Team of Rivals" turned out to be.
Posted by: MayBee | April 05, 2011 at 12:55 PM
DoT:
Jay Cost, March 25: "I am increasingly of the opinion that the budget deficit might be the number one problem for this president in his reelection bid."
LUN
Posted by: PaulL | April 05, 2011 at 12:55 PM
More Jay Cost from that column:
"I’ll make the following prediction. If there is nothing that President Obama and his team can do to resolve the budget deficit problem between now and next November, and if it does indeed figure largely in the campaign, we should expect a highly negative reelection campaign from the president. Perhaps it will not be on the order of LBJ in 1964, but it probably will be more negative than what Bill Clinton put forth in 1996 or George W. Bush offered in 2004. Republican efforts to rein in the budget deficit will be cast again and again as the party's perfidious attempt to realize its 80-year dream of destroying the social safety net.
"What else can the president and his team do, now that CBO says his budget would create a $1.2 trillion deficit in 2012?"
Posted by: PaulL | April 05, 2011 at 12:59 PM
PD, I have a lot riding on Black’s statement. Will you give DoT permission to show why Black’s words do not mean what I think they mean?
I will drop NBC for this thread.
Thank you.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 01:03 PM
The hardest questions the press will ask the president this election cycle:
"What brand clubs do you use?"
"What do you think was your least successful decision?"
"How about that Joe Biden?"
"Just how monstrous are your opponent's policies?"
"Do you believe you could be more awesome?"
"Do you mind if I don't swallow?"
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 05, 2011 at 01:06 PM
Interesting item from Cost. My sense is that people are coming around to the understanding that something drastic simply has to be done, and they will be largely immune to the demagoguery.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 01:08 PM
He'll blame all of his failures on the "mess" he was "left" with, but if the Republicans nominate someone with the stones to go after Obama, his days are numbered.
During the campaign (which never really stopped so it's difficult to use that as a time marker) he stated that he had a new way of doing things that threw all the old time lags in the crapper so anybody with even a barely discernible level of savoir faire should be able to roll him on that. Although that's a tall order for whatever turd sandwich the Repub party will eventually serve us under the guise of prime rib.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 05, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Doris Kearns Goodwin on Fox
Were her remarks original or recycled without attribution?
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 01:10 PM
--He'll blame all of his failures on the "mess" he was "left" with--
This is something I've been thinking about lately and haven't heard anyone bring up.
Dems point out Bush's final budget had over a trillion dollar deficit, thanks in large part to TARP.
But we are also told that TARP was a great investment and the gov actually made a profit it on it. Now, I have made my distaste for TARP clear, but if what is said about it is true, a more proper accounting would attribute that supposed profit to Bush's budget deficit, when the liability was incurred, and stop giving Barry credit for a profit made by the taking on by Bush of the original TARP liability, masking what are in reality even larger deficits incurred by Barry.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 05, 2011 at 01:12 PM
PD, I have a lot riding on Black’s statement. Will you give DoT permission to show why Black’s words do not mean what I think they mean?
Nobody, including you, needs my permission. But I have noticed that even people who participate in the topic alternate between wanting it to end, and keeping it going by replying.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Jon Stewart is stealing your material:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-mocks-obama-campaign-video-from-yes-we-can-to-you-know-whatever/
Posted by: SaveFarris | April 05, 2011 at 01:14 PM
To me, the central problem for Republicans is that no serious, competent, successful person wants to have his or her life destroyed in an effort to become President.
Today's costs are simply too large. We will find ourselves voting for inexperienced, unknown, untested, unqualified candidates. All the others have said or done something disqualifying.
Posted by: MarkO | April 05, 2011 at 01:14 PM
OT but good article by Peter Wallison at AEI calling for the repeal of the Dodd Frank monstrosity.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 05, 2011 at 01:21 PM
Thanks PD. I do let the topic rage sometimes and I try to better recognize when it has gassed out.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Wow Dot that is great. It is hard for me to believe that union support is that great.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 05, 2011 at 01:23 PM
I will try...
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 01:23 PM
MarkO
We have not yet seen the candidate for the republicans to run against Obama. Someone is going to go for it and take the dems by surprise. We have all the reason to be hopeful because all of our bad candidates have already run. Ex: Dole, McCain etc..We don't need to fear Obummer. His failure in all areas has preceded him and he has no place to hide.I'll give him his media 15 points but after that he's a shell.
Posted by: maryrose | April 05, 2011 at 01:26 PM
"We will find ourselves voting for inexperienced, unknown, untested, unqualified candidates. All the others have said or done something disqualifying."
Romney has a real albatross in his MA health plan, and he doesn't seem to have found a way to handle it. Maybe the best approach would be to say "if elected, I will sign a repeal of Obamacare" and let it go at that.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2011 at 01:27 PM
TK;
I love you but you are beating a dead horse. All will be revealed in time just like it was with Clinton and Lewinsky.
Posted by: maryrose | April 05, 2011 at 01:28 PM
"Do you mind if I don't swallow?"
"I, mean, like...we did that last time for you, right? Remember that?"
Posted by: lyle | April 05, 2011 at 01:29 PM
Fun with Gallup Job Approval numbers.
Obama just recently passed his 800th day in office.
It has been roughly 500 days since Obama first dropped below 50% in the job approval rating.
Yes,it was roughly 300 days into his presidency -- less than a year -- that Obama went negative.
At this point in his presidency,Bush was still approximately 300 days away from first cross under 50% in the job approval rating.
Yes,it was roughly 1,100 days into his presidency -- over three years -- before Bush had less than majority approval.
Posted by: hit and run | April 05, 2011 at 01:34 PM
The biggest problem facing a republican contender to take on Obama, the way this thread is encouraging, is being called a racist by the MFM. Once, someone goes after, the brother, he or she will be painted with the same brush they have been using on the Tea Party, Scott Walker and Arizona. Then if someone gets really objective with Bambi and his principles or lack of them, they will bring out the big guns - Hitler, Stalin and Bush. Katie Couric will be long gone but Charlie Gibson will still be there, with is reading glasses perched professorially on his proboscis, asking questions only he can answer wrong.
But I think if its a Republican governor or ex-governor and not a senator they will go full chest bump against him and make him very uncomfortable. Attack his decision making, his judgement, his leadership and his regard for America's place in the world. Hit him where it hurts - his ego.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 05, 2011 at 01:34 PM
From Robert Costa at NRO (who is on the ground in WI):
A source close to Prosser e-mails: “We are seeing high turnout, both in expected places and areas that are an unexpected surprise.”
Let us hope they are "pleasant" surprises!!!
Posted by: centralcal | April 05, 2011 at 01:36 PM
I don't think the Mendacious Mulatto (tip o' the hat to whoever coined that gem) will get reelected. But, having thought about this a bit, I don't care if he gets another term IF the Rs get huge majorities in both houses. Like, say...veto over-riding majorities. Can you say lame duck Jan. 2013 for at least two years?
Posted by: lyle | April 05, 2011 at 01:38 PM
I'll take a crack at it, TK. While Black's statement is interesting, it has little bearing on the issue you are discussing for at least 3 reasons:
It was made in a case that has nothing to do with citizenship; it was about the 14th Amendment
It was made in a dissenting opinion (that is, the majority of the Justices didn't agree with it even when he made it.; there is no reason to believe the majority of today's SCOTUS would be oersuaded
Bingham made the statement you highlight in connection with the passage of the 14th Amendment for which he was floor manager. The natural born citizen requirement was part of the original Constitution and is totally unrelated to the 14th Amendment. Bingham, of course had nothing whatever to do with the original Constitution. His opinion is no more persuasive to a court than DOT's, yours or mine would be. No lawyer would suggest otherwise before any court with a straight face.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 05, 2011 at 01:38 PM
Please, I'm begging you; no more Repub senators for President.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 05, 2011 at 01:39 PM
CC- high turnout was expected in Madison (close mayor race), Milwaukee (county exec race), Racine (mayor race, and school district referendum) - all places leaning left. Unexpected surprises would be anywhere else and likely good for Prosser, e.g Waukesha County (the one conservative area with a big population).
Posted by: henry | April 05, 2011 at 01:42 PM
Please, I'm begging you; no more Repub senators for President.
Exactly! Listen, elephants, its nobody's "turn." You don't get a bye into the tourney because you've "been around."
Posted by: lyle | April 05, 2011 at 01:43 PM
All of a sudden we are seeing more negative Obama bumper stickers down here on the first coast of Florida. My favorite still is "01-21-13: End of an Error".
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 05, 2011 at 01:46 PM
It was the concurring opinion. Not the dissenting opinion. BLACK, J., Concurring Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Does that make it a useable statement, even if I may have used it incorrectly?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 01:49 PM
By the numbers, here is Ryan's plan at LUN.
Click on the link at "here" end of Stiles column for Obama's plan. AoSHQ calls it a plan vs. a punchline.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 05, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Yowza! RNC parody gets 5 times the views as Obama's re-election ad. LUN
P.s. Read what Ben Smith says at the end of the energy being more like 2010 than 2008. And this is Politico.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 05, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Bambi is on Fox blaming republicans for the government shut down - I think. I really can't bear to listen.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 05, 2011 at 02:06 PM
Via Instapundit:
Parody gets more views than real Obama launch
The National Republican Senatorial Committee's parody of Obama's 2012 campaign, released Friday, now has 665,000 views on YouTube.
Obama's real launch video, released yesterday: Just 168,000.
YouTube's metrics tend to lag a bit, but the numbers suggest that -- energy-wise -- we're in 2010, not 2008.
And from the comments:
Obama official: 2,107 likes, 1,684 dislikes, Parody: 2,875 likes, 695 dislikes, 5 to 4 likes vs dislikes for the official, and 4 to 1 likes vs dislikes on the parody. Pretty overwhelming for where the "fun factor" is.
Posted By: Mike | April 05, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Posted by: Ranger | April 05, 2011 at 02:09 PM
The US campaigns we currently see are worse than those ran in 3rd world countries around the world. Scott Brown says the Democrats have operatives digging thru the health records of his entire family. Meanwhile, anyone attempting to find out the slightest facts about Obama or are silenced or sent to prison. For over three years at least we have known that Obama can not or will not produce a birth certificate, education records, travel records, medical records etc, and yet here we sit, preparing to go thru another campaign with a person who cannot prove he is eligible to hold the office.
We have Americans sitting in military prisons, their lives destroyed because they feel that is the only way to bring the matter to resolution. We have American citizens going to trial, fired and put on probation for trying to find out what Obama is hiding in his education records. Posters on conservative blogs like JOM are told to quit bringing the subject up. US Courts claim that US citizens have no standing to bring the matter up.
What would Chavez, Castro and other leftists leaders do differently?
Posted by: pagar | April 05, 2011 at 02:09 PM
Madison City Clerk reporting 17% turnout so far.
Posted by: PD | April 05, 2011 at 02:17 PM
TK:
The short answer is no. Like dissenting opinions, concurring opinions by definition do not command approval from the rest of the Court. The other reasons I listed remain accurate.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 05, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Is that good for us PD?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 05, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Samuel Johnson had nothing to do with the Constitution, let alone with the founding of the U.S.
But Scalia relies on him to help define “keep and bear arms” in District of Columbia v Heller
He goes on to quote a great many scholars and writers from prior, during, and post American Revolution. Should he have never used their opinions? What can be used in court to define a term?
Bingham stated the definition of “natural born” on the house floor and it went without any debate or objection. If he had offered the definition of “keep and bear arms” to an equal acceptance, would Scalia have been able to use it frame the popular understanding of the term?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 02:20 PM
Thanks Jim, that makes sense.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 05, 2011 at 02:22 PM