Powered by TypePad

« A Tough Day For Whitey | Main | Saturday Morning »

June 24, 2011



One more for the lowlights reel.
It's already longer than Gone With the Wind.


The first sign that there is no teleprompter is indicated with the opening line from the official transcript:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.) I don’t want to give a long speech,…

(Applause.) I don’t want to give a long speech,…

Are you sure that the "Applause" wasn't after the "I don’t want to give a long speech,…"?


So sad. I feel so bad for Monti's parents.

And, for the cheapening of the value of a Medal of Honor recipient.

But what can you do?

McCain in the White House would have been worse.

Ditto, is true about Gore over Dubya.

But we have not been well served.

Well? Before Lincoln there were some stinkers who got elected.

After Lincoln, there were others.

Giants don't come along every four years.

While Bill Clintoon sort'a adds some comic relief, on where history will show him using an intern as a humidor.

Comanche Voter

Moron misspeaks. What else is new.


Does anyone REALLY expect this cretin of a president to really care enough to have actual feelings or memories about soldiers or real heroes?

Everything Obama says is calculated to make him sound competent and caring... and all is a lie.

Ralph L

You can't expect to keep all those foreign-sounding names straight.

Ralph L

You can't expect Obama....


"can't remember" or doesn't care!


Just impeach the guy and be done with it!

Tom Maguire
But what can you do?

McCain in the White House would have been worse.

Ahh, but what about (shudder) Hillary?


And Sarah palin is STUPID!!!

The Press Corpse

Sandy Daze

24 June 2011

Duty. Honor. Country. Service. Sacrifice. Heroism.

he would not know the meaning if these words slapped him in the face. he is not fit to rinse out Monti's (MOH) or Guinta's (MOH) socks.

What a disgusting piece of _ _ _ _.

Take good care,


In fairness to the President, you can't expect him to remember every Nazis, Soviets or some mad Pol Pot type that had no concern for human beings.
He can't recall every terrorist he sends to torture innocent civilians and bomb villages.
He can't expect to recall every poorly educated soldier who got stuck in Iraq or Afghanistan.


He can't recall anything beyond those Alinsky instincts.


Here is the CSPAN link TK posted on the other thread...
The Monti remarks are at about 3:00.


Good comment at Blackfive from Tom W. -
"I knew he was an ass. I did not know he was this inhumane.

He's an actor. He's pretending to be Commander-in-Chief. He said what he thought a good TV or movie president would say, but he messed up his lines.

Like most actors, he isn't a real person, so he doesn't have real feelings. Remember when Bush would come out of Walter Reed, looking as though someone had beaten him over the head with a two-by-four? He'd be slightly dazed, and his eyes would be all swollen and red. I want that sorrow and pain in a wartime president.

What made Bush a great man in some ways was that he was tortured by military deaths and injuries, but he didn't let that deter him from what he knew to be his duty."

I used to think Obama should really be an actor or spokesman for some slacks company...but Tom W. is correct, he can't even say his lines correctly.

Melinda Romanoff

And even that's a stretch, rse.

Old Lurker

Since we all know that 70% of jobs are created by small businesses, the LUN remarks by Turbo Timmy sure do make a lot of sense. I am so glad we are led by our Best and Brightest.


Another comment at Blackfive points out this link.

The FLOTUS on Barry Soetoro -
"“See, what you all need to know about the President you helped to elect is that when it comes to the people he meets, Barack has a memory like a steel trap,” she told her eager audience at a sold-out breakfast fund-raiser at the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley, Calif., on June 14.

“He has a gift in that way, able to retain information, know more than those who are briefing him, asking critical questions, because all of those wins and losses are not wins and losses for him [but] they are wins and losses for the folks whose stories he carries with him, the folks that he worries about and prays about before he goes to bed at night,” she said,..."

Captain Hate

A fellow moron @ AoS points out something else the smartest Preznit evarrrrrr got wrong:

"I was able to award..."

No dipshit. He earned it. Congress awarded him. You were simply the pin monkey. And you even fucked that up as you were obviously too busy thinking about regripping your 3 wood than to give a crap about honor for even ten seconds.

Melinda Romanoff


Today's Journal, Section C, "Lender Drops Pursuit Of Debt".

It will definitely be behind a paywall, but there's the link anyway.

Effin' thieves.


Hey Janet, you and I were ahead of the curve on this story yesterday - glad people are paying attention.

Everything this President does he fails at. Everything. Excuses about not having prepared remarks just don't work, because so often his prepared remarks are just as big a failure as his extemporaneous remarks.

Without his puppet masters and handlers, he is worthless.

Duty. Honor. Country. Service. Sacrifice. Heroism. These are words of weight. But as people -- as a people and as a culture, we often invoke them lightly. We toss them around freely. But do we really grasp the meaning of these values? Do we truly understand the nature of these virtues?

Classic projection. Obama invokes those words lightly. He tosses them around freely. He doesn't grasp their meaning. He doesn't understand their nature.

Being clueless and uncaring, even hostile to these concepts, he assumes others are, too.

Then again, since he believes he represents not the United States but only the people who voted for and support him...maybe he's right.

Rob Crawford

No dipshit. He earned it. Congress awarded him. You were simply the pin monkey. And you even fucked that up as you were obviously too busy thinking about regripping your 3 wood than to give a crap about honor for even ten seconds.

Yes -- and the proper phrasing is "I had the honor of presenting..."


--Since we all know that 70% of jobs are created by small businesses, the LUN remarks by Turbo Timmy sure do make a lot of sense. I am so glad we are led by our Best and Brightest.--

Little Timmy apparently actually believes that if the government has more money and small businesses less, in order to shrink the deficit, then there will be more jobs and a healthier economy and this during a time of terribly sub par growth.

That not only isn't even Keynesianism and is worse than Keynesianism it's kind of the opposite of what Keynes advocated.

What economic theory undergirds what they seek?

Rick Ballard

"What economic theory undergirds what they seek?"

I believe a fellow named Marx wrote about it.

Rob Crawford

What economic theory undergirds what they seek?

Vulgar Marxism; fascism. All filtered through enough layers of pseudo-intellectual gauze they can claim to be completely innocent of the origins of their ideas.

Mussolini was -- in his own words -- ALWAYS a socialist. He just shifted from an international focus to a national focus and from the state/"workers" owning everything to the state/"workers" directing everything.

He and his later acolytes/allies loved the unions as much as large corporations, because in both cases they could control large masses of people with pressure on only a handful of individuals.


OT-Another WTF? from the insane leftist worldview...
"In a country with the ideal of treating everyone fairly and equitably, do we really need to know if someone is a boy or a girl?" ... "As history shows, one enterprise in which Americans excel is the breaking down of divisions."

So the party of Black Power, affirmative action, la Raza, noble savages, LGBT, Obamacare waivers, Pigford, CRA,....doesn't want us to notice the difference between boys & girls. Divisions are a-okay for everything imaginable except boys & girls.


--“See, what you all need to know about the President you helped to elect is that when it comes to the people he meets, Barack has a memory like a steel trap,” she told her eager audience at a sold-out breakfast fund-raiser at the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley, Calif., on June 14.--

I'm sure this has been pointed out before but isn't Michelle like the worst nightmare of the feminist's ideal of a first lady?

She spends all her time trying, unsuccessfully, to be a fashion plate, the MSM talk endlessly about her physical attributes, she speaks mainly about school children, diet and other domestic issues and, worst of all, does the best imitation of Tammy Wynette standing by her man I've yet seen. The only thing she's missing is a cheerleader outfit and pom poms.
Nancy Reagan is chock full of feminist mystique next to this hero worshipping, arugula planting, doe eyed hausfrau.


But aren't profits a part of overhead. If those small businesses could eliminate all that overhead, they would be lean, mean, and competitive again.


"Effin' thieves."

They are making their money on foreclosures.


"Foreclosures are the servicer’s reward for keeping their mouths shut about the reality of these transactions. They get a free house."

She, at least, stands by herself.

I think I'd rather Michelle were President than Barack.


Another day, another boob belt,

another glamor shot, another angry face.

Danube of Thought

Minus 16 at Raz today.


Well, I considered mentioning Marxism and facism, guys, but I'm not sure it's even that sophisticated.
I'm beginning to think the left, with the exception of committed and open Marxists, no longer has any economic theory.
Intellectually they know free markets work and are superior to the state and they know the electorate knows that as well, but in their heart they still are in effect socialists. What it gives rise to is the utterly incoherent ad hoc policies we now see.
The welfare state seems the best description of it and as such it's really not an economic theory at all; it's a system of desired outcomes with no set or coherent method of attaining them. It is in fact no more sophisticated than raise taxes and spending at all times except for those time when it isn't politically attainable or those times when some taxes should be cut and if you do raise them be sure and provide numerous loopholes to alter behavior except that they can't otherwise admit tax rates alter behavior.
At least Marx and socialists and fascists pretend to have some theory no matter how idiotic and dishonest.

Rob Crawford

I see she's reenacting a scene from "Nosferatu".

That evening, the patrol was attacked by a group of at least 60 insurgents, who had established two positions on a wooded ridge about 50-yards above the patrol and attempted to outflank Monti and his team. The Americans took cover and returned fire, and Monti radioed for artillery and close air support. Enemy fire killed Staff Sergeant Patrick Lybert. Another soldier, Specialist Brian J. Bradbury, was severely wounded and left lying in the open between the enemy and the team's position. Staff Sergeant Chris Cunningham, leader of the patrol's sniper team, called out that he was going to try to rescue Bradbury. Monti replied, "That’s my guy. I am going to get him."[7]

Monti made three attempts to reach Bradbury. On his first, he advanced to within three feet of Bradbury before being forced back by intense machine-gun and rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fire. His second try was similarly turned back and as the rest of his patrol provided covering fire, Monti advanced a third time but was struck by an RPG. Some news reports indicated that the explosion blew off both of his legs,[8] but this is not supported by family accounts or military records. Monti attempted to crawl back towards cover. He is reported by comrades to have made his peace with God and asked Sgt. Cunningham to tell his parents he loved them. Monti died moments later.[9] At about the same time, the artillery and air support for which he had called began hitting the enemy position, killing 22 of the attackers and dispersing the rest.[6][7]

How the hell do you forget that?


Has her hair been cut, or is it rolled up in the back? Either way, I have to admit it's more flattering than it has been.

Her stylists are apparently still working on getting her not to scowl and stick her tongue out.

Rob Crawford

I'm beginning to think the left, with the exception of committed and open Marxists, no longer has any economic theory.

That they dare articulate.

Now, their primary personal motivations are greed for wealth and power; but the manner in which they understand the world and attempt to achieve the same is Marxism/socialism/fascism.

Rob Crawford

How the hell do you forget that?

He never read it in the first place.


Are oversized veggies being thrown at her?


Agree, Porch, hairstyle more flattering than many of her others and, yes, I think it is tucked up and under in back.

She seems unable to speak without scowling horribly. Butt, she is also unable to walk or stand or sit gracefully either (judging by the numerous photos of her).

Old Lurker

"Cats", Rob.

Mel I spit out my coffee reading that story this morning. In the not too distant past a Board would be sued by stockholders for failure to protect corporate assets and equity. Hell, at least sell them to somebody who cares for cents on the dollar. In this Atlas Shrugged world where rules apply to thee but not to me, this is a perfect example of the blurring of a corrupt government and it corporate enablers and conspiracy members.


I'm convinced he's more like Eddie Valentine of Trading Places' or Jeff Jefferson, of "Distinguished Gentleman', a conman playing the role,


Are oversized veggies being thrown at her?

If so, no problem...she can catch them with her big hands.


Bill Gross

PIMCO Founder To Deficit-Obsessed Congress: Get Back To Reality: Bill Gross, a co-founder of investment management giant PIMCO, says members' of Congress incessant focus on deficit -- and in particular, the manner in which they obsess about deficits -- is foolhardy, and a recipe for disaster. What the country needs, Gross said, is real stimulus now, and a measured return toward fiscal balance in the years ahead.

"Solutions from policymakers on the right or left, however, seem focused almost exclusively on rectifying or reducing our budget deficit as a panacea," Gross writes. "While Democrats favor tax increases and mild adjustments to entitlements, Republicans pound the table for trillions of dollars of spending cuts and an axing of Obamacare. Both, however, somewhat mystifyingly, believe that balancing the budget will magically produce 20 million jobs over the next 10 years. President Obama's long-term budget makes just such a claim and Republican alternatives go many steps further. Former Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota might be the Republicans' extreme example, but his claim of 5% real growth based on tax cuts and entitlement reductions comes out of left field or perhaps the field of dreams. The United States has not had a sustained period of 5% real growth for nearly 60 years."

Both parties, in fact, are moving to anti-Keynesian policy orientations, which deny additional stimulus and make rather awkward and unsubstantiated claims that if you balance the budget, "they will come."...

Unfortunately for Gross and those who share his concerns, the fight over the debt limit seems driven by Republicans hungry for long-standing ideological victories and Democrats cowed into an anti-stimulus fervor whipped up by the right. To many observers it appears that fixing the currently broken economy isn't really what this is about.

Melinda Romanoff


What did the muffins smell like this morning at "The Market"?


Speaking of the welfare state, here, at RCM, is as good a post mortem or perhaps epitaph for it as I've read.

Danube of Thought

Is David Petraeus an exemplary man, or what? Take a look at this.


'Unexpectedly,' Governor Easley is vetoing the Voter ID bill in Charlotte, just like the ACLU is challenging the bill that Scott
signed, 'rules, we don't need no rules' Haven't able to copy links for days, from
an Ace link.

Melinda Romanoff


Dobie called. You flunked out again.

Danube of Thought

Underwater again at RCP.


Nancy Reagan is chock full of feminist mystique next to this hero worshipping, arugula planting, doe eyed hausfrau.



--What the country needs, Gross said, is real stimulus now, and a measured return toward fiscal balance in the years ahead.--

Leave it to a good little marxist like leo to turn to a billionaire bond trader with a short on government bonds for an understanding of why the government should issue more debt.



Thursday, June 23, 2011
Sorrell v. IMS Health: Corporate Commercial Speech in the Age of Citizens United

David Gans

Monday – the last day of the Court’s Term – is shaping up to be First Amendment Day at the Supreme Court. Two of the four remaining cases to be decided raise important questions concerning the meaning of the First Amendment. The Court is expected to release its long awaited opinions in Brown v. EMA, concerning the constitutionality of state regulation of violent video games, and McComish v. Bennett, the sequel to last Term’s blockbuster campaign finance ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. With these landmark rulings still to come, it would be easy to lose sight of today’s ruling in Sorrell v. IMS Health, a commercial speech case that has gotten almost no attention this Term. But Sorrell should not be missed. The 6-3 ruling written by Justice Kennedy – also the author of Citizens United – lays the framework for a major expansion in the protection the First Amendment affords to commercial speech by corporations and other businesses.

For the last thirty-five years, the black letter First Amendment law has been that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, but that restrictions on speech proposing a commercial transaction are subject to a more lenient form of judicial review in light of the differences between commercial and political speech at the core of the First Amendment and the government’s greater interest in regulating commerce and the economy. This balance reflects two settled and fundamental propositions: (1) the First Amendment affords some protection to the economic speech of corporations, but that corporations do not have the same First Amendment rights as living persons; and (2) governments have broad latitude to regulate the commercial speech of corporations to protect consumers and safeguard the health, safety and welfare of “We the People.” To guide lower courts to properly resolve First Amendment challenges, the Supreme Court in a 1980 case called Central Hudson adopted a form of intermediate scrutiny for commercial speech cases.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion today in Sorrell takes a step back – possibly a substantial one – from this established framework. Sorrell involves a Vermont statute regulating marketing of drugs by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The statute denied to marketers information in the form of pharmacy records – collected by the government – about the prescribing practices of individual physicians. In striking down the Vermont regulation, Justice Kennedy invoked the same basic First Amendment precepts which he trumpeted in Citizens United. “Heightened judicial scrutiny is warranted,” Justice Kennedy wrote, because the law “burdens disfavored speech by disfavored speakers.” “Content- and speaker-based restrictions” on commercial speech, Justice Kennedy explained, offend basic First Amendment principles and require heightened judicial review (presumably a form of strict scrutiny and certainly a good deal stricter than Central Hudson). While Sorrell did not specifically rely on Citizens United, the imprint of Kennedy’s campaign finance blockbuster is hard to miss.

While Citizens United emphasized that protection of political speech is at the core of the First Amendment, today Justice Kennedy suggested that commercial speech may be deserving of no less protection. “A consumer’s concern for free flow of commercial speech may often be keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue.” In explaining why the Vermont statute was unconstitutional, Justice Kennedy likened the statute to one that suppressed political speech, criticizing Vermont for “tilt[ing] public debate in a preferred direction.” All the while, Justice Kennedy paid lip service to the established First Amendment tradition that states have a freer hand to regulate speech that proposes a commercial transaction to protect the public welfare.

Justice Breyer’s dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, saw in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion a new, more demanding standard for commercial speech cases, and sharply criticized it as inconsistent with both precedent as well as first principles. To the dissenters, Justice Kennedy’s demand for heightened scrutiny was a return to the infamous Lochner era, the heyday of constitutional protection for corporations, today reviled by both liberals and conservatives alike. As Justice Breyer observed, “[t]o apply heightened scrutiny, when the regulation of commercial activities is at issue (which often involves speech)” is to undercut much federal and state legislation “inextricably related to a lawful governmental effort to regulate a commercial enterprise.” Justice Kennedy’s pointed response – “The Constitution ‘does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.’ It does enact the First Amendment.” – all but admits the charge. In Justice Kennedy’s view, the Justices are there to enforce the First Amendment, including by overturning economic regulation of commercial speech by corporations.

Sorrell throws commercial speech doctrine into a state of considerable confusion. The Court has not overruled Central Hudson, but at the same time it has undermined the ruling by introducing a new, undefined, yet clearly stricter standard of review. The majority found the statute wanting under both tests, so it was not forced to choose between the two. Sorrell suggests that the Court’s commercial speech doctrine may be in a state of great flux in the years to come, and that Justice Kennedy and his colleagues are eager to expand, possibly quite substantially, the constitutional protections available to corporations and other businesses. This is an area that deserves to be closely watched.


He never read it in the first place.

Yes, he read it. At least the version that was on TOTUS which was close to the one above. What he didn't do was invest any emotion in what he read. Otherwise, he would have remembered Sgt. 1st Class Jared Christopher Monti...

I guaran-damn-tee you George W. Bush remembers Lt. Michael P. Murphy.


Bush awarding the Medal of Honor to Lt. Michael P. Murphy.

Yeah, Bush hasn't forgotten Lt. Michael P. Murphy.

Rob Crawford

Yes, he read it. At least the version that was on TOTUS which was close to the one above.

He repeated the words shown on the teleprompter. That's not reading.

What he did is purely a function of reflex; a flatworm could do as much. Reading involves the intellect.

Perennial Partesans


McConnell: "But I do think there is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, asked about “the isolationist streak of some in the Republican Party." The subject is Libya and the War Powers Act.
I’m not sure that these kind of differences might not have been there in a more latent form when you had a Republican president. But I do think there is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side. So I think some of these views were probably held by some of my members even in the previous administration, but party loyalty tended to mute them. So yeah, I think there are clearly differences and I think a lot of our members, not having a Republican in the White House, feel more free to express their reservations which might have been somewhat muted during the previous administration.
Thoughtful and honest, right? Is it also disturbing? Should members of Congress be expected to take a consistent position with respect to presidential power and the military? Or does the need for a check on the President justify the pressure from whichever party happens to be the opposing party?
Posted by Ann Althouse


Shooting fish in a barrel is a continual source of amusement--for some--but coming up with a comprehensive agenda for the country requires just a wee bit more thought. Mort Zuckerman has a good article documenting one very important aspect of where we are as a nation: Why the Jobs Situation Is Worse Than It Looks--We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression.

The roots of our troubles run far deeper than the Great Recession and antedate the year 2000. Everyone knows that Obama made things worse. The scandal of the GOP is that Bushie went haring off war mongering around the world for 8 years instead of attempting to address our real problems. The fact is, he didn't think we had economic problems and poured gasoline on the fire instead. How will the GOPers redeem themselves if they get their hands on the levers of power again, as they're likely to do?


(Link for full size.)


Straaange bedfellows.

Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced a bipartisan bill today that would remove the federal prohibition on marijuana. The bill would instead let states legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.


This story from Hotair is why every conservative should have a dead, stuffed RINO mounted on their den wall.
15 mealy mouthed Republicans appealing to Barry to double, that's right DOUBLE!, CAFE standards in 2017.

If you're looking for a Fred Flinstone power train in a sardine can for $60,000 then come on down to RINO sales and talk to Christie "I Always Know What's Best For You Even If You Don't" Whitman or Mike "I'm the King of Sales" Castle cause they're makin' crazy deals.


Posted by Ann Althouse

Gee, I guess she was just too busy to notice the silence of the Dems during Clinton illegal war over Kosovo.


I thought ol' Barney didn't recognize marijuana? Now he's a big proponent. He needs to get it legalized so his boyfriend won't get in trouble again.


Some of your links keep linking to justoneminute, anduril.

Danube of Thought

Iggy, I think what underlies it all is The Fatal Conceit: they actually believe that central planning by the really smart ones is the best method for achieving societal goals--and that they, or course are the really smart ones.

The failure of that model has been demonstrated abundantly around the world for a century, without a single exception. And yet they continue to believe that this time--now that we've finally got the really good guys in charge--it's going to produce a miracle.

Cecil Turner

I'd note this isn't simply a matter of misspeaking, and that he was fundamentally wrong about SFC Monti (and if he'd had it right, he wouldn't have tried to make that point). That's the sign of something a lot less forgivable than a verbal gaffe: sloppy staffwork. I'm not sure if that explains all this Administration's incompetence in diplomatic and public affairs, but it certainly doesn't help.

I don't think it reflects all that much about Obama's "steel trap" memory. But it does indicate his staff doesn't think this sort of thing important enough to get right, and a general sloppiness either of how information is presented to the boss, or how he absorbs it. In either case, it's not something you like to see in a chief executive.



(( Bush hasn't forgotten Lt. Michael P. Murphy.))

I bet he hasn't even forgotten the hows and whys and names and circumstances surrounding the heroic and honorable service of Salvatore Guinta and Jared Monti. I'm sure Bush keeps well up on these matters.


Bombing the Moon

— By Andy Kroll| Fri Jun. 24, 2011

Following up on my GOP mind games post, Ezra Klein makes a smart observation in this morning's Wonkbook on how the GOP transformed tax increases from a important, necessary option in the deficit debate into something evil and extremist. To prove his point, Ezra uses a clever rhetorical trick: he swaps "bomb the moon" for any mention of taxes in Republican statements made after yesterday's deficit talks drama:

"We've known from the beginning that bombing the moon would be a poison pill to any debt-reduction proposal," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor. See? Or: "President Obama needs to decide between his goal of bombing the moon, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit," said McConnell and Sen. Jon Kyl in a joint statement. Or: "First of all, bombing the moon is going to destroy jobs," said Speaker John Boehner. "Second, bombing the moon cannot pass the US House of Representatives—it's not just a bad idea, it doesn’t have the votes and it can’t happen. And third, the American people don’t want us to bomb the moon."

"Bombing the moon" would actually make these statements more accurate. A bipartisan deficit-reduction proposal, almost by definition, includes revenue increases. That, along with the spending cuts, is what makes it bipartisan. And unpopular? Tax increases, particularly if targeted at the wealthy, show themselves again and again to be among the most popular ways to reduce the budget deficit. The most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 57 percent of Americans though the best way to reduce the deficit was "a combination" of tax hikes and spending cuts, and polls that have tested specific policies have found vastly more support for raising taxes on the rich than for GOP mainstays like cutting Medicare and Social Security and discretionary funding that goes to programs like education.

The quotes Ezra uses come after Rep. Eric Cantor and Sen. Jon Kyl, the number two GOPers in their respective chambers, bailed on the bipartisan deficit reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. Cantor went first, saying he wouldn't continue negotiating if any form of a tax increase was on the table, including cutting $21 billion in subsidies for big oil companies. "Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue," Cantor said in a statement. Kyl followed Cantor out the door soon after.

Apparently, Cantor forgot that the US is not under one-party rule, and that his constituents elected him to do what's expected of all politicians: compromise. The Biden-led deficit negotiations are intentionally bipartisan, and to claim that Democrat-backed tax increases are non-negotiable, as Cantor believes, defies logic. It's not negotiating if one side refuses to give any ground whatsoever. Either Cantor is more intransigent and bound to conservative orthodoxy than we thought, or he's setting up House Speaker John Boehner to be the fall guy who cuts a deal with the Democrats on a short-term deficit reduction plan.

What's clear is that any deficit reduction plan must include new revenue of some kind. After all, it was partly the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that got us into this mess in the first place. Not filling that $2.6-trillion hole with new revenue would be madness.

Melinda Romanoff

Barney just suggested to putting the defense budget cuts first.


Instapudit comments on the WaPo's efforts to puff up yet another lefty response to the Tea Party:

WASHINGTON POST: Can Liberals Start Their Own Tea Party? Well, we’ve had the Coffee Party, the Brownbaggers, The Other 95%, A New Way Forward, the One Nation Movement — am I leaving any out? I can’t remember — and none of them has gone much beyond a spot of initial positive coverage from the NYT. So, probably not. But apparently, Van Jones is going to try again with the “The American Dream Movement.” I hear he’s got a catchy slogan, too: From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs. Or maybe it’s Death to the Kulaks! I’m not sure . . . .

Rick Ballard


The RCP piece was very good. I suppose, wrt your question, that current efforts could be described as the last frantic attempts to find enough food to support the Leviathan engendered by the romantic idiocies of the Endarkenment. The article's 30 year time horizon actually describes the explosive increase in parasitism which will end 200 years of metastasis.

I can't think of a term to accurately describe what's happening other than systemic failure. The President is the perfect man to lead from his behind as Leviathan starves to death.


Clinton illegal war over Kosovo

a quintessentially Neocon war.

Why the Jobs Situation Is Worse Than It Looks--We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression

conservatives peddle backward

Steve Benen, Political Animal

June 24, 2011 10:00 AM
Kansas GOP learns to stop worrying and love red tape
It’s not exactly new that conservative policymakers hope to use (cue scary music) big government to regulate women’s reproductive choices. What is new, however, is the creativity some of these policymakers use to achieve their preferred ends.

Republicans, at least for now, know they can’t simply pass legislation prohibiting women from terminating their pregnancies. That leaves them in the position of looking for ways around the law in order to reach the same goal. As Kate Sheppard explained yesterday, Kansas, where far-right Republicans dominate throughout the state government, has figured out a way to effectively ban abortion by making it impossible for the state’s last three abortion clinics to keep their doors open.

The trick is to use red tape and burdensome government regulations, imposing them on health care delivery and private enterprise. “But wait,” you say, “don’t Republicans hate using red tape and burdensome government regulations, imposing them on health care delivery and private enterprise?” As Rachel Maddow explained last night, these principles only apply capriciously.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

According to the new law created by the Republican-dominated state legislatures and Gov. Sam Brownback (R), there are now extremely onerous new licensing rules for all abortion clinics in the state. Kansas’ Republican health secretary is now empower to enforce these rules and shut down any facility that fails to fully comply.

What kind of rules are we talking about? These private facilities are now being told “how many rooms they have to have, how many square feet those rooms have to be, and what those rooms have to be used for. There has to be, for example, 80 square foot patient interview room, 80 square foot per patient recovery room. There’s new regulation on the type and size and number of janitorial closets these clinics are required to have. Also, the number and location of bath rooms — new regulations for the kind of lighting in each room, and what kind of emergency exits they are required to have.”

These are all new regulations, created by right-wing policymakers. What’s more, the clinics were notified of the regulatory changes on Monday, then told inspections could begin on Wednesday. In other words, even if the clinic wanted to take steps to comply with the new red tape, they’d have 48 hours to make structural and architectural changes to their facilities. And if state officials find that a clinic has the wrong size janitorial closet, for example, the clinic can be shut down.

I’d note, just as an aside, that it’s hard not to wonder how much better of the nation would be if Republicans cared half as much about job creation as they do about blocking women from exercising their reproductive rights.



I'm beginning to think the left, with the exception of committed and open Marxists, no longer has any economic theory.

Well that is a great practice, but will it work in theory?

Seriously, all socialism devolves down to this: The criminal takings of a self acclaimed elite and their clients. "Theory" is little more than a rationalization for this brutal reality, and, let me point out, it thus matter little if they are rationalization their immorality to themselves or their victims.

There may be some room for debate about Marx and his "theory", but I'd take the bet that socialists of yore also used "theory" as nothing more that a technique for rationalization, obscuration and propaganda in their pursuit of power and self aggrandizement. I doubt that there is much intellectual difference between the collectivists of today and these of the 19th century other than those of to day have much more to forget.

A brief review of 19th century "socialist theory" will do to show that it was as self-serving, wooly headed and as loonily anti-intellectual as the socialist cant of today. Socialism stands n direct opposition to all we know about Man and the world.

If there was a golden age of moral purity and intellectual integrity for the various forms of political collectivism, it was short lived: the moment that any of them reached the slightest bit of power the tyranny began.

Melinda Romanoff


Take a gander at Janet Tavakoli's latest.

your welcome

"— am I leaving any out? I can’t remember —"

The Whigs, and the Know Nothing Party


You know it doesn't matter, Ignatz, Zuckerman was one of those 'top men' who vouched for Obama 'steel trap mind' or some such. McConnell really does pull a Mortimer,
they need to send the hounds after him, he could have brought out that the penultimate
administration, was all in for Kosovo, for
their puppets, weren't really interested in
a more strategically critical effort, like Iraq, and it goes without saying the way
they offered blandishments to Iran and N. Korea.

Rob Crawford

Hey, Tom -- could you please clear out all the spam? Some idiots keep cut-and-pasting crap, and no one can actually discuss anything anymore.

Perhaps permanently block the abusers, too?

Or post their IPs.


Althouse doesn't like politics. OK. Understandable, but shortsighted--after all, that's the American Way. She should have read Krauthammer today to get a better handle on the parameters of the issue. I don't say Krauthammer has the answers, but he's at least asking the obvious questions, which is a very good way to start--in a fundamental sense it's an Aristotelian approach: survey the history of the problem. Paste:

Is the Libya war legal? Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it is not. President Obama has exceeded the 90-day period to receive retroactive authorization from Congress.

But things are not so simple. No president should accept — and no president from Nixon on has accepted — the constitutionality of the WPR, passed unilaterally by Congress over a presidential veto. On the other hand, every president should have the constitutional decency to get some congressional approval when he takes the country to war.

The model for such constitutional restraint is — yes, Sen. Obama — George W. Bush. Not once but twice (Afghanistan and then Iraq) did Bush seek and receive congressional authorization, as his father did for the Persian Gulf War. On Libya, Obama did nothing of the sort. He claimed exemption from the WPR on the grounds that America in Libya is not really engaged in “hostilities.”

To deploy an excuse so transparently ridiculous isn’t just a show of contempt for Congress and for the intelligence of the American people. It manages additionally to undermine the presidency’s own war-making prerogatives by implicitly conceding that if the Libya war really did involve hostilities, the president would indeed be subject to the WPR.

The worst of all possible worlds: Insult Congress, weaken the presidency. A neat trick.

But the question of war-making power is larger than one president’s blundering. We have a core constitutional problem. In balancing war-making power between Congress and the presidency, the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to declare war.

Problem is: No one declares war anymore. ...

Danube of Thought

Robert Kagan:

The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chancethat the mission will not succeed.

I agree with his premise: not only is Obama's decision an entirely political one, but it has the potential to be a very grievous political miscalculation. It's all here.


The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 got us into this mess in the first place.

Moonmen parade naked on the moon.

Sarah's baby bump was suspiciously small.

Bush's IQ was measured at 89.

If you don't have any friends you end up drinking and trolling blogs.

My caseworker left shaking and in tears this morning.


Krauthammer's final sentence:

We need a set of rules governing the legality of any future war. This will allow us to concentrate on the most important question: its wisdom.

Corny, at his best.

"no one can actually discuss anything anymore"

^chuckle. Yeah, Maguire would much rather have the coffee klatchers. share recipes and FLOATUS ad homs, 'cause, you see, that's what his blog is all about.


Tavakoli, has a fraction of a point, but then with the inclusion of Zsa Zsa Huffington, and Gerry McCarthy, steers right
into a ditch, he's the modern version of the clueless cadet, in the segment of the 'Untouchables,' that Malone says will be the next chief of police.

Yes, the stimulus didn't go to
infrastructure, why is that, that's how the Apollo Alliance transcribed it to Congress,
maybe as Robert Reich intuits, too many white working men, in that segment of the economy.

Cecil Turner

What's clear is that any deficit reduction plan must include new revenue of some kind. After all, it was partly the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that got us into this mess in the first place.

Hey, didn't we just have this debate, barely six months ago? And didn't the Dems add some stupid payroll tax holiday to the Bush tax cuts and extend 'em two years? And now they want another bite at the apple? How do you think small businessmen are going to react to the Congresscritters making noises about new taxes? By hiring new workers? [yeah, right]

Frickin' stupid. The main reason revenues are down is because the economy is in the crapper (and unemployment is substantially higher than the official 9% number) . . . partly thanks to the idiotic Dem spending spree. Now they want to spend more and raise taxes? Does that make sense to anybody? What's clear is that these guys need to be voted out of office, and take their propagandizing press sycophants with 'em.



I'm sure you are right. But he could barely make it through the ceremony where he had to give Lt. Michael P. Murphy's parents the MoH. He was emotionally invested in that ceremony, something no-drama Obama can't be bothered with.

If you'll remember, the ceremony where Monti's parents received the MoH on his behalf is the one where Moochelle wore that gawd-awful dress. Oh wait, I should be more specific since she wears a gawd-awful outfit to every ceremony.



Tavakoli: "Father Pfleger has something to answer for as well. What happened to separation of Church and State? Why does the Catholic Church deserve tax-exempt status if it allows a priest to use the Church pulpit for political rallies?"

Duh! Because Pfleger's parishioner's are black. Doesn't happen elsewhere.

Nor does Tavakoli address other problems, such as the notion that corporate management's duty is to the shareholders (among which corporate management itself looms large)--thus leading corporations to focus on short term gains rather than the capital spending Tavakoli wants to see.

Tavakoli: "America's biggest problem by far is that capital spending in new production facilities that create jobs and real products never occurred, not even after trillions of dollars were thrown at banks in the global financial system."

As I said earlier re Zuckerman--the problems are a lot deeper than the last few years. Too bad Bushie wasn't paying attention.


"Maguire would much rather have the coffee klatchers. share recipes..."

That was the purport of his rebuke to me.


I'd take the bet that socialists of yore also used "theory" as nothing more that a technique for rationalization, obscuration and propaganda in their pursuit of power and self aggrandizement.

Like Keynesianism. A great excuse for what they want to do anyway.


Jump ahead to the 16 min mark and you will see why Obama doesn't remember Jared C. Monti.


RepublicansDemocrats, at least for now, know they can’t simply pass legislation prohibiting women from terminating their pregnancies private health insurance plans. That leaves them in the position of looking for ways around the law in order to reach the same goal. As Kate Sheppard explained yesterday recently, Kansas, where far-right Republicans Washington D.C., where far left Democras dominate state government the government offices, has figured out a way to effectively ban abortion private health insurance by making it impossible for the state’s last three abortion clinics private health insurance providers and businesses that pay for their workers plans to keep their doors open.

There, fixed that for you...


I heard a snippet of that press conference with Schumer and Durbin, who reminds me of
that annoying weatherman played by Stephen
Tobolowsky in 'Ground Hog Day' another pay roll tax cut, 'haven't we seen this movie, before'

Danube of Thought

I second Rob C's suggestion.



The dress was appallingly inappropriate.

And I totally agree, no emotional investment from Obama. Obama has more emotional investment in his golf game.


Much of this Journolist/nutroots content, i'm convinced Rob, is like a computer virus,
I first saw the blogosphere as an antidote to much of this, but then the likes of Pandagon, where young master Klein comes from, started advancing and then the brain
slug started munching on Sullivan,

it's not just simply inane, it actively damages the proper understanding of foreign and domestic policy, much like the indoctrination protocols that rse has uncovered. It's 'unknowledge' like that recent offering from Stengel.


He was emotionally invested in that ceremony, something no-drama Obama can't be bothered with.

Did you see the way he stepped to the side after presenting the medal to Murphy's parents, so that the parents and the medal could be the focus of the ceremony? He wanted to make it clear that the honor belonged to Murphy and his family. Only when (and because) Murphy's mother began to break down a little did he come back over and put his arm around her. Bush understood it was nothing to do with him.


This story distresses me.

The comments to this entry are closed.