Cutting Through The Smokescreen In Obama's War On Coal

Hedge fund hero Tom Steyer has pledged to donate as much as $100 million to "Green" candidates, so he is the latest progressive hero. On Sunday the Times engaged in a bit of pre-emptive hand-wringing about the fact hat he made part of his fortune from invesgtments in coal (better to cover this on a non-news holiday weekend than in the heat of the fall campaign).

The Powerline guys get a nod and a link but I found this admission from the Times to be shocking - they quote a friendly expert admitting thst Obama's war on coal will sock it to the middle class. Ooops!

Here we go. First, the set-up:

“I am disappointed, I have to say,” said Dale Jamieson, a professor of environmental studies at New York University, who said he admired Mr. Steyer’s campaign to curb climate change. When it comes to large-scale investments in coal, Professor Jamieson said, “you can’t undo what you’ve done in the past.”

And a bit later the throat punch:

But detractors see hypocrisy: As coal linked to Mr. Steyer’s previous investments burns in Asian power plants, he is spending a fortune earned from those investments to pursue a green agenda that would shutter similar plants in the United States.

“If my side wins, it will create real costs for ordinary working people,” said Professor Jamieson of N.Y.U. “Hits to their welfare will not be compensated by stacks of money.”

Unlike Mr. Steyer, he said, “they won’t have options.”

I'm reeling. Sure, Republicans say that sort of thing, but the Times? And it is not as if Obama has been candid about the inevitable intrusion of reality on his fine designs. Here he is announcing the latest risky coal scheme:

Now, special interests and their allies in Congress will claim that these guidelines will kill jobs and crush the economy.  Let's face it, that’s what they always say. 

But every time America has set clear rules and better standards for our air, our water, and our children’s health – the warnings of the cynics have been wrong.  They warned that doing something about the smog choking our cities, and acid rain poisoning our lakes, would kill business.  It didn’t.  Our air got cleaner, acid rain was cut dramatically, and our economy kept growing.

These excuses for inaction somehow suggest a lack of faith in American businesses and American ingenuity.  The truth is, when we ask our workers and businesses to innovate, they do.  When we raise the bar, they meet it.  When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, American chemists came up with better substitutes.  When we phased out the gases that depleted the ozone layer, American workers built better refrigerators and air conditioners.  The fuel standards we put in place a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers; the American auto industry retooled, and today, they’re selling the best cars in the world, with more hybrids, plug-in, and fuel-efficient models to choose from than ever before.

In America, we don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children.  The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technology to break the old rules.

So making coal power more expensive to prompt a shift away from coal power won't actually make power more expensive. Uh huh.

Comments

[James D.]

I agree with Porchlight.

What's the point of having impeachment in the Constitution if it's unusable even in the case of a President who's openly and gleefuly flouting the law (even laws he himself signed) in dozens of ways, all of which are horribly destructive to the country?

[Threadkiller]

Why don't we wait for him to drop a nuke on Murrieta, (A) Bub?

[Rick B]

"He is the reason..."

The pathetically inept and incompetent Kendonesian commie bastard is not the "reason" for anything. He's Howard Dean's handpicked puppet, selected to be the face of Progressive Fascism due to what was considered to be a reasonable melanin/intelligence ratio. Unexpectedly, the intelligence quotient does not appear to have been accurately estimated, resulting in the puppet cutting his own strings.

Impeaching a puppet serves no purpose, especially when he is in the process of destroying the Progressive Fascist Party.

[daddy]

Ed Driscoll at PJ Media has a story up on E J Dionne being disingenuous about the Constitution. The article had this bit of the Instapundit from some Seminar in 2013 that I thought was excellent:

In February of 2013, Glenn Reynolds was interviewed by Russ Roberts, economics professor at George Mason University. Roberts reiterated some of the arguments by Louis Michael Seidman, the author of the Times article positing the jettisoning of the Constitution. When asked if the left’s argument is that “we already ignore the Constitution; it’s not really much of a binding document,” as Roberts paraphrased Seidman, Glenn responded:

REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.

ROBERTS: Well, he would say – well, I won’t speak for him, but some would say that, well, there’s a social contract, we’ve all agreed to kind of play by these rules…

REYNOLDS: Oh really?!

ROBERTS: …of electing officials, and…

REYNOLDS: Well, the rules I agreed to electing these officials are the Constitution. I thought we were going to ignore that. That’s my social contract.

[Threadkiller]

When a political party makes the choice to bankrupt and starve their constituents before taking action, they should no longer be supported by those constituents.

[Threadkiller]

What strings did the "puppet" sever, Rick?

I think he is every bit still attached to his masters and is doing their bidding quite well.

The strings that I see being cut are between the puppet and his pawns.

[daddy]

A lil' Cheesecake for the ladies of JOM!!!

Prince Fielder naked!

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Porch-- no POTUS has been 'removed' by impeachment. Impeachment is a political process that should only be employed to gain political advantage. Andrew Johnson's impeachment was Kamikzee by both Johnson and the 'radical' reconstruction Repubs. Johnson was impeached but not removed, and the radical Repubs lost control of Reconstruction anyway, paving the way for 'realistic' Repubs to end reconstruction give sovereignty back to the rebellious states as part of the riged election of 1876. The Klan rode again as a result and Jim Crow was born. Be careful how you use impeachment.

[Threadkiller]

Maybe they picked Cleveland to combat the voter fraud from 2012.

The GOP can combat that, can't they?

[jimmyk on iPad]

" We have no remedy at all."

Porch, James D, I'm usually on the side of the aggressive, take no prisoners approach, and I really hate to be on the same side as NK :). But even Nixon only got pushed out of office because he was on tape saying incriminating things. And that was with large D majorities in both houses and a hostile MSM. I think having thorough aggressive investigations comes first. Flush out the next Dean or Butterfield. Then when all the ducks are lined up, consider impeachment. Right now it's premature.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Yes the Repubs have, in several states with Voter ID laws, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS. Wisc's legislature failed to use a safe harbor alternative ID at taxpayer expense, so the ID law won't help Walker in '14, but I don't think he'll need the help.

[Porchlight]

Talk about impeachment of Obama when there's one cup of rice left in the cupboard, gas is $25 per gallon and five Hondurans are being housed in your guest bedroom. Otherwise it's craziness, unless we want this president to regain his former popularity.

If these are the criteria, no President can or will ever be impeached. It will be far too little and too late by the time we reach those conditions, not to mention the opposition will have been thoroughly emasculated.

Perhaps people have forgotten that Clinton was poison through the 2000 campaign and Gore avoided him. Had Clinton not been impeached, we almost certainly would have had President Gore on 9/11/01.

If we don't impeach Obama before the end of his term, then any (Democrat) President can do anything he or she wants to this country and get away with it. Who would stop it? Certainly not anyone afraid of boosting the President's popularity.

[Threadkiller]

Impeachment is a political process that should only be employed to gain political advantage.

If you believe that then I am clueless as to why you don't support impeachment.

Remember when "Hell froze over" and a Republican won in Massachusetts because of his clear stance of being against the liberal takeover of healthcare?

Chick-fil-A voters are many and they don't like lawbreaking lawmakers.

Any candidate for Senate that is crystal clear that he will impeach the asshole will win. No different than Scott Brown.

I have never understood why the best candidate has to have a limp wrist.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Nixon was forced out by desperate Repubs who were looking at '74 elections, and didn't want to vote in Senate to keep him in office. You're more than welcome to join the dark side of political pragmatism any time JimmyK!

[jimmyk on iPad]

I think I need to take a shower now, NK. Never again.

[Old Lurker]

Show me the Cabinet Officer who will resign rather than follow the orders of the POTUS to violate the Constitution...then we can talk about Nixon and the threat of impeachment.

Show me a single leader of the party of the POTUS who will object to POTUS borrowing whatever authority he needs, then we can talk about Nixon and the threat of impeachment.

Show me the media leader....

[Old Lurker]

Hell. Show me the leader of the Opposition Party who will...

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Porch -- ahem. Clinton had 65% approval in 2000, so he wasn't 'poison'. Why didn't Gore use Clinton more in the election, well.. hey.. I have no idea why, and neither did Clinton. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-Bill-Clinton.aspx

[Porchlight]

Porch-- no POTUS has been 'removed' by impeachment.

I'm aware of that. I am interested in pursuing a political remedy that will neuter him if he can't be removed. Any lingering negative consequences from Clinton's impeachment were reversed by 2000/2002.

Yes, Clinton is popular in his post-presidency (mainly because people remember a strong economy in the late '90s due mainly to the tech bubble and an R Congress keeping Slick from pursuing poor policies), but so what? It wouldn't matter jack if he didn't have a wife running for the WH.

jimmyk, if Congress doesn't have the stones to impeach Obama, it won't impeach anyone on the lower rungs either. Plus, there is not much time.

[Porchlight]

Porch-- no POTUS has been 'removed' by impeachment.

I'm aware of that. I am interested in pursuing a political remedy that will neuter him if he can't be removed. Any lingering negative consequences from Clinton's impeachment were reversed by 2000/2002.

Yes, Clinton is popular in his post-presidency (mainly because people remember a strong economy in the late '90s due mainly to the tech bubble and an R Congress keeping Slick from pursuing poor policies), but so what? It wouldn't matter jack if he didn't have a wife running for the WH.

jimmyk, if Congress doesn't have the stones to impeach Obama, it won't impeach anyone on the lower rungs either. Plus, there is not much time.

[Threadkiller]

Not knowing why Clinton was treated like poison by Gore is the same as saying Clinton was not considered poison by Gallup.

[Porchlight]

Why didn't Gore use Clinton more in the election, well.. hey.. I have no idea why, and neither did Clinton.

Of course you know why. I can still remember that election and Gore stayed away from Clinton because Clinton was unpopular, at least in the swing states where it counted.

[henry]

You didn't build that. Salon wants to nationalize Google and Amazon. I don't know why, they act as de facto branches of the White House as it is.

[rse]

jib-you may want to take a look at this development plan the community organizers and the banks and the mayor working with the Democracy Collaborative have cooked up for JAX. http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/jacksonville-final.pdf

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

The Nixon judiciary committee hearings were good politics for the Dems, primarily because that was when the Legacy Media decided to become 100% Partisan Dems. That Media effect, plus the end of the USA's post-war industrial monopoly (ca 1969) inflation, and the embarassing phony peace treaty end to Vietnam, set it all up nicely for Dems. And they played it well selecting a Southern Governor rather than a Senate Brahman. Carter blew up on them like a trick cigar, because of Carter's incompetence and the Boston/DC/Hollywood elite turned on Carter.

[rse]

ch-you should look at it too as it is modelled on your fair city and says so.

[daddy]

I've got the pup's for the extended long morning/afternoon dog walk today, so I will leave you now with a link to the Alaska Dispatch where you can read about yesterday's bear mauling (just down the road), a Farmer in Palmer Milking Musk Oxen, and a 77 year old guy who just caught a 482 pound Flounder.

Cheers!

[Porchlight]

Thorough investigations - of course, but several are already ongoing and not getting much traction. We won't have time to investigate the orchestrated border invasion, and certainly not before 200K kids make it over the line and are granted amnesty.

The goal is to overwhelm - crisis after crisis, massaged by a friendly media. Eventually the opposition becomes paralyzed by the outrage and looks helpless and insane.

Whatever. I understand the political reasoning against impeachment but the fact remains, if we don't seriously counter this president, now, we may as well give up for all time.

[Dave (in MA)]

Will we see a resurgence?

11 August 1977, San Mateo (CA) Times, pg. 47:
Judes Witcover, the Washington Post political correspondent, describes something called the "full Cleveland" in "Marathon," his book on the 1976 presidential campaign. The full Cleveland was the informal uniform worn by a labor delegation from Ohio -- baby blue polyester leisure suit, white open collar shirt, white belt, white socks and white patent leather shoes.

[daddy]

Why didn't Gore use Clinton more in the election, well.. hey.. I have no idea why, and neither did Clinton.

Possibly because Clinton was too smart to be affiliated with Gore's Global Warming Idiocy. This bit, posted at the BBC yesterday, is Gore's latest bit of insanity:

Al Gore: climate change is the 'biggest crisis our civilisation faces'

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Clinton was 58% approval in Fla PRIOR to the election -- Gore was a fool, what can I say: http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm

[Threadkiller]

Gore and Hanlon sitting in a tree...

[Rick B]

"we may as well give up for all time"

Porchlight,

Don't worry, we're going to run out of money way before we run out of time. The Bourbons managed to regulate themselves out of existence in France and the commies did the same in the USSR. The Progressive Fascists are on a well trodden path which terminates rather abruptly at the edge of a cliff. BOzo's jes Drivin' Ms Thelma and Louise.

[Captain Hate]

Weird Al was too busy talking about embarrassingly mawkish family stories, most of which were easily proven lies, than to seek the support of somebody who never attained 50% of the popular vote.

rse, I'm shocked that Cleveland is held up as a great role model for cities when the local economy has been in the toilet for a long time.

[suzy]

I agree with Ab--no impeachment! What on earth would it accomplish except to send the LIVs and the Dems racing to vote! I know many of you love Palin, but she is simply wrong.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

If Clinton is to be believed (Heh) Clinton very much wanted more face time in Gore's campaign.

[Porchlight]

Clinton was 58% approval in Fla PRIOR to the election -- Gore was a fool, what can I say: http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm

So, significantly below his national approval average, then. In other words, unpopular enough to make the difference.

Gore is and was a fool, but not campaigning with Clinton was not evidence of it.

[Porchlight]

What on earth would it accomplish except to send the LIVs and the Dems racing to vote!

It would accomplish something very significant: fulfilling our moral duty.

It is much easier not to punish kids, you know. It makes you much more popular as a parent. At least in the short term. It might even ruin your relationship with them forever.

You still have to do it.

[Porchlight]

*Punishing them" might even ruin your relationship...

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Gore UNDERperformed Clinton's Florida approval rating by 9 percentage points so Clinton's 58% approval was Gore's downfall?
Ah, no. Mercifully Gore was a fool in all matters including not dragging Clinton down to Southeast Fla to get out more senior votes as the man who saved MediCare in '95, and will protect Soc Sec from evil GWB.

[jimmyk]

Salon wants to nationalize Google and Amazon.

I believe Salon has been taken over by ignorant Zack Carter/Ezra Klein/Tommy Vietor types, or perhaps it is an ingenious sock puppeting operation by Republicans to make the left look ridiculous. No, scratch that last one, it would be too clever by half. In any case, it has made a mockery of whatever it once was, which wasn't much to begin with.

[Threadkiller]

LIVs need subsidised $25 fuel before they swing their vote towards impeachment.

[suzy]

Well, Porch, does one fulfill one's moral duty and give up the chance to win the senate and possibly the presidency? That is the age old question. I think common sense should trump moral duty.

[Captain Hate]

I'm very torn between the Porch and Palin side, which ordinarily would be an automatic for me, and the political gamesmanship of impeachment. Since the GOP increasingly stands for nothing but situational convenience, I'll have to go with don't impeach. But I'm not happy about it because if anybody deserved impeachment it's Gaylord Focker.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Moral duty... the Kamikazee got into their aircraft to do their moral duty to the Emperor and their ancestors. My question is, was it an effective tactic? Obviously not; Tokyo burned under Curtis LeMay's genocide by firebombing and Truman turned Hiroshima and Nagasaki into mushroom clouds, and the Emperor unconditionally surrendered anyway. But the Kamikazee had no choice, the war was lost no matter what they did. So their actions were not counterproductive to their moral duty. Impeachment before winning the Senate and passing a budget would be counterproductive to our constitutional duty, so it should be avoided for now. Celebrities calling for impeachment to amp up their own relevance should be taken for what they are.

[narciso]

Yes, he's a figurehead, but he is at the top of the apparatus, if one of ISIL's Saudi affiliates takes out AbQuaiq, we'll be near 10 dollar/barrel oil, another prediction she wishes she wasn't right about,

[Threadkiller]

It is a moral duty to vote for a candidate that does not have a moral duty to protect the Constitution.

[Danube on iPad]

"he was born every bit as British as George III"

So was George Washington.

[Jane]

I agree with everyone. We can't impeach Obama because it would be political suicide.

We must impeach Obama otherwise we have established a Kingdom going forward and there is nothing left to save.

We are completely screwed. And I've got a new born baby who I want to be free!

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

But DoT, Obummer hates the British Crown far more than George Washington ever did.

PS: TK, THAT was funny.

[Porchlight]

Gore UNDERperformed Clinton's Florida approval rating by 9 percentage points so Clinton's 58% approval was Gore's downfall?

He underperformed Clinton's approval rating pretty much everywhere, so that's meaningless. Hell, Clinton underperformed his own approval ratings in 1996.

In any rate it is irrelevant, since we are talking about Gore's reasoning well in advance of the election when he couldn't have known how he would perform.

That reasoning is simple. Clinton was far less popular in the swing states which would decide the election (in the end, only one swing state, and only 537 votes, and that's after the standard Dem margin of fraud) so Gore decided Clinton was a net drag on the ticket; in other words campaigning with him would boost R turnout more than it would boost Dem turnout.

Unprovable, but then again, not my point. My point is that Clinton was made sufficiently unpopular via impeachment to lose Gore the election. Barely. But sufficient.

[Porchlight]

I think common sense should trump moral duty.

Then I guess we have differing views of moral duty.

Like I said, I understand the political reasoning. Morally, I think it's unconscionable to let this pass, and we will most certainly pay for our lapse down the line.

[Jack is Back! (In the USA)]

Didn't Clinton's impeachment increase his poll numbers and popularity? The media tried to turn Starr into a modern day Torquemada and even with majorities in the house and Senate it went nowhere.

What makes proponents of impeaching America's first black president think things will turn out differently with a Dem Senate and a media back guard?

I am one who is convinced that we need him in place making bone-headed decisions, playing golf, going on vacations and flaunting his incompetence every chance he gets. It is great optics to those voters who are witnessing a fool at the helm and gives us more opportunity to win in 14 and 16.

[Captain Hate]

Don't worry, Porch, with Thad Cochran's minority outreach program, Karl Rove's not-so-whiteboard says "Permanent Repuke Majority"!

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

I'll re-link to Gallup-- Clinton's approval SPIKED when the Lewinsky story broke (and the Legacy Media convinced LiVs that the story was about private sex), and then SPIKED to its HIGHEST level ever when when the House voted to impeach and Clinton bombed Sadam (same weekend--subtle.) Clinton's approval tailed off after the Senate vote ended impeachment. You've got to evaluate the electorate as it is, not as we would like it to be: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-Bill-Clinton.aspx

[Porchlight]

It is great optics to those voters who are witnessing a fool at the helm and gives us more opportunity to win in 14 and 16.

We said that in 2012. The electorate can't possibly be so stupid, can they? Well, they were, and they likely will be again.

We are losing the country to a leftist wannabe thug who is quickly turning into a genuine, successful thug. I guess I am at a place where I'd rather lose it honorably, by at least attempting the remedy the Founders provided for us, than yield to popular opinion in the hopes that we'll be saved in future elections (by the same electorate whose opinion is currently holding us in thrall).

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

The Google boys get to call out the Federal government and predict its 'collapse under its own weight' , because they have positive cashflow and positive net worth: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/08/googles-larry-page-i-think-the-governmen

[Porchlight]

Clinton's approval tailed off after the Senate vote ended impeachment.

Remind me again when the 2000 election took place. Was it before or after the spikes you mention, and the subsequent tailing off?

And as Clinton himself proved by underperforming his own approval ratings in 1996 (and his favorables in 1992), what Gallup says is not the election. The election is the election. 537 votes in Florida say the supposedly wildly popular Clinton lost it for Gore.

[jimmyk]

I've talked about how hard it is for someone from the same party to succeed an two-term presidency. Only once since 1929, and that was Bush after Ronaldus Maximus. What I hadn't noticed is that all the cases in the last 175 years were Republicans. The last Democrat to succeed an 8-year Democrat presidency was Martin Van Buren in 1837.

People get sick of incumbent parties after 8 years, unless the presidency is of the stature of a Reagan, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt (the three cases in the 20th century). Democrats need not apply.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Tailed off? from 65% to 57% nationally 58% in Fla.

Gore lost it for Gore, in part because his idiocy froze out Clinton. Gore won 17 of the 18 states where Clinton's approval was 58% or greater, but he got burned in Fla. I am still thrilled about that to this day. POTUS Gore on 9/11? POTUS Gore's EPA?

[jimmyk]

I meant to add to my 2:45: I don't count cases like Truman who ran as incumbents because they succeeded a President who died in office.

[Threadkiller]

Common sense prevailed in 2012.

[Jack is Back! (In the USA)]

Porch,

Lots of new voters coming to the polls in 16. They were tweens when Obama was first elected and have been witnessing complete incompetence, no jobs, expensive college, loose borders, no moral direction,etc. I say he is our best chance by keeping him visible.

Impeachment would take too long. Do you think Biden would be an improvement?

But it is getting to the point where I could even support a coup d' etat.

[Threadkiller]

George Washington and Barack Obama enjoyed the same citizenship status.

[Beasts of England]

@daddy - the 482 lb. flounder had me searching for my vermouth beurre blanc. The fisherman in question was, though, fishing for the halibut. ;)

[James D.]

Like I said, I understand the political reasoning. Morally, I think it's unconscionable to let this pass, and we will most certainly pay for our lapse down the line.

Again, i agree with Porchlight.

And it's not just moral duty. It's ultimately practical, because every time you make the calculation to not fight this battle or that battle, to surrender ground, to say, "Yes, he's broken the law but it's politically counterproductive to force the issue now", you weaken yourself, and you make the fight you're going to have to have sooner or later, far more difficult than it would otherwise be.

TO use Porch's example of disciplining kids. It's hard and unpleasant to punish them when they're 5 or 7 or 10. They'll cry and scream and whatever. They'll be happier and more docile if you just let things go.

But all you're doing is storing up trouble that will haunt you all the more when they disobey in far more serious and dangerous ways at 15 or 16 or 18.

And our side has been putting off fights and giving ground and surrendering for going on 50 years now. When does it stop?

[Porchlight]

jimmyk, arguably Nixon won in 1960 and Gore won in 2000. Both elections stolen, depending on whom you believe (and Gore unarguably won the popular vote).

My main problem with that historical analysis (though it gives me some hope) is that I fear US history is no longer much of a guide. Obama has smashed all the molds.

[narciso]

And while he's golfing, Lerner, and Lloyd and Holder, and whoever heads OSHA do their thing, our military is further weakened, no ally from Tokyo to Timbuktu dare trust us, we saw how he reacted to Citizens United, we saw the bloody
aftermath of the Arab Spring

[Threadkiller]

If Biden isn't an improvement after impeaching Obama, impeache him as well.

[Threadkiller]

Extra "e" is for effect.

[suzy]

The Republicans simply cannot "do" an impeachment well with the MSM all in for Obama. Why should we pick a fight we cannot win? I agree with JiB--let Obama slowly deconstruct. But, if we are going to have Jeb Bush and/or Romney run, we should then just give up the fight and "go for broke" and impeach--knowing we will lose all--the presidency, the senate.

[Porchlight]

James D. at 2:59, you phrased it far better than I did. When do we fight on *this* hill, not some other hill in the future?

[Jane]

It is great optics to those voters who are witnessing a fool at the helm and gives us more opportunity to win in 14 and 16.

At this point it is a hell of beyond "optics". Survival might be a better word.

[Porchlight]

Unfortunately, Suzy, we won't have time to impeach if we wait until the 2016 primaries are over.

Yes, Biden would unquestionably be an improvement. Not even close.

[Threadkiller]

The Republicans cannot beat the MSM but we should vote for them because they can beat the people the MSM supports.

[Jane]

Actually, I think the very best message we can send is to impeach Holder - now. That might rein in Obama. We should also defund the DOJ until he is gone. They are as lawless as they are law-full so I don't see a downside.

I think after Friday, if J Walton rules as expected they will all be toast. It's just a matter of how much the administration can slow it down.

[Stephanie]

Optics are awesome on this:

Obama to attend fundraiser with pro illegal immigration filmmaker. via drudge

The problem is the 'optics' are only reaching about 35% of the electorate. The rest are on vacation or 'out to lunch.'

He's doing the negative optics thing as a big stick in the eye of the conservative/libertarian coalition. He knows the libs are for him, the muddle is out to lunch, and the rest of us are impotent as long as he maintains those first two groups where they are.

Apathy is a vote for the status quo. And he's fine with that.

When only 40% of citizens even bother to turn out to vote - ever, it's a helluva long way to getting this country riled up to do anything about his antics.

The caricature is of southerners being fat, drunk and stupid, but the muddle is that demographic and well, FABER!

[Beasts of England]

@Steph: can you run your last paragraph through a narcisolator* for me, please.

*narcisolator is - for some reason - in my auto-correct. lol

[Jack is Back! (In the USA)]

Leave it up to Hamas and Hezbollah to take the heat of a immigration invasion and put it back on Israel. Rocket attacks. Whooopee! Time to move the cameras.

[Jack is Back! (In the USA)]

..off a immigration invasion.....

[Jane]

Obama to attend fundraiser with pro illegal immigration filmmaker. via drudge

I hate to tell you but the liberals are all posting graphs that say illegal immigration is the lowest since 2006. Oh and Obama has deported more people than you can count.

[Extraneus]

This discussion brings to mind the Bork quote:

There is no possibility, today, of adhering completely to the original constitutional design. Such a daring plan would require overturning the New Deal, the Great Society, and almost all of the vast network of federal legislation and regulation put in place in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century. It appears that the American people would be overwhelmingly against such a change and no court would attempt to force it upon them.

We are long past the time when a majority of Americans would support the original intent of the Constitution, or the moral case for removing a half-black president for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's just a fact.

[Jack is Back! (In the USA)]

Damn, and here I thought "The Girl from Impenena" was the Brazil National Anthem:)

I'll take Germany and their aerial game.

[Dave (in MA)]

Yes, Biden would unquestionably be an improvement. Not even close.

I'm having a hard time imagining the improvement with a different idiot and the same handlers.

[cathyf]

(and Gore unarguably won the popular vote)

I'll argue against that. In our system, lots of votes go uncounted. Between military absentee ballots in CA (which Gore would have won even if every single vote went to Bush) and military absentee ballots in TX (which Bush would have won even if every single vote went to Gore), that's about 2 million ballots. The military absentee ballots went about 65-35 to Bush, so that right there is enough to give the popular vote to Bush, too.

The popular vote is a a different election -- it is only calculated to enough precision to determine the electoral college votes in each individual state. We actually know it to very high precision in FL because we had to, but we don't anywhere else. So the popular vote is simply a tie -- the vote totals for Bush and Gore are equal to the precision that we know them.

[Old Lurker]

New Thread

[jimmyk]

The popular vote is a a different election -- it is only calculated to enough precision to determine the electoral college votes in each individual state.

Also, it's not the direct objective of the campaigns. As I recall, Bush didn't even campaign in California and NY. The popular vote is like total yards in a football game or number of hits in a baseball game. Correlated with what matters but incidental to the strategies of the competitors.

[Stephanie tortoise not the hare]

Beasts, the common acceptance in DC is that southerners, tea partiers, Palin are stupid, out of touch fat asses too uncouth to be paid attention to but the muddle, tuned out of what goes on in DC, is actually encapsulated in that caricature. They are into celebrities, partying, and clueless.

Right where dems are happy to keep them.

[sbw]

We don’t want to play rope-a-dope with Democrats about presidential impeachment.

Far better to pile up reliable evidence of agency malfeasance -- maybe even call for Val Jar testimony or emails if the evidence points that way.

Then dare Holder to prosecute issue after issue.

If Holder doesn’t, then impeach him.

But we can’t even forge evidence into clear indictments unable to be avoided by the press.

[Porchlight]

jimmyk, cathyf, I get all that, but we have no direct evidence that Bush won it, since it wasn't contested. Therefore I think we have to say that Gore won it.

But I suppose it is technically "arguable" so I am wrong in that usage.

[jimmyk]

Porch, I was just saying that my statement was about winning elections, not about popular vote totals. I take your point that 1960 and 2000 were close calls, so there are no guarantees, especially with the Dem capacity for cheating. But I still think 2016 is the Rs to lose, which is why they should be thinking about strong conservatives like Walker, not playing for the center that they don't need.

[Porchlight]

I'm having a hard time imagining the improvement with a different idiot and the same handlers.

Several reasons, but mostly that 1) no matter how evil the handlers, Biden doesn't hate America like Obama does, and therefore it is a moral improvement if not a political or intellectual one and 2) a successful impeachment and conviction of Obama would be so utterly damaging and demoralizing to the fortunes of the Dem party that the handlers just wouldn't have any clout left.

In fact it probably wouldn't even be the same handlers. Jarrett et. al. would not survive the impeachment and would be blamed for Obama's downfall and removed in the resulting Dem power struggle. They'd go when Obama goes. Biden would be the lamest duck of all time.

A near fantasy, I realize, but let's just say that the installation of Biden would be of very, very little concern if all the preceding were the cause of it.

[Threadkiller]

We are long past the time when a majority of Americans would support the original intent of the Constitution

Then there is no reason to object to a minority that chooses to not vote.

[Daddy]

This is cool my iPhone found a cell station way backup this valley. Much big bear poop out today much more than normal so we r making lots of noise. I wish one of u who can't run as fast as me was here:). Sorry I cannot post a pic but very beautiful.

[Porchlight]

which is why they should be thinking about strong conservatives like Walker, not playing for the center that they don't need.

Hear, hear.

[Stephanie]

Then Biden would be the incumbent in 2016, Porch. Plenty of time to keep him locked away and fan the flames of 'awesomeness' via the MFM for any improvements that occur after Obama is out and will be seen to bolster his 2016 bid. Biden as savior. Retch.

[Porchlight]

Even so, I just don't see it. The only way an impeachment/conviction could succeed is if the evidence presented against Zero were massive. And if that kind of evidence gets a national hearing in the MSM, and further persuades the Senate to convict (all very big ifs, I realize) then I'm not thinking that ole Joe Biden is going to be able to save the day. He wouldn't even want to - the job is far too hard even in the best of times.

[jimmyk on iPhone]

Biden would be Jerry Ford without the charm.