Mar26
ObamaCare And The Court
on March 26, 2012 at 6:25 amPosted In: Media Criticism, Political Commentary
[Update a few minutes later]
ObamaCare: an unconstitutional misadventure. That actually describes much of what the federal government has done since Wickard.
[Update a while later]
Did y’all see the video of Mr. Santorum “calling out” a reporter on a video over at Hot Air?
I don’t know, I am getting depressed. I received a fund raising letter from Mr. Romney, which to excuse the pun, was weak tea. It was a collection of patriotic platitudes with zero specifics on what he would do. Pointedly, his letter said absolutely nothing about energy, particularly developing domestic and North American hydrocarbon resources, which are needed as a bridge fuel in even the most optimistic scenarios for alternative and renewable energy sources, and an issue on which Mr. Obama is incredibly weak, regardless of what Mr. Obama’s apologists are offering as excuses.
The other thing is that here in Wisconsin I am becoming besieged with robo calls from the Romney campaign discrespecting Santorum’s candidacy. Can’t Mr. Romney put forth what he is for?
With respect to my original remark, Mr. Santorum is correct in clarifying his position that Mr. Romney is singularly unqualified to champion the position of opposition to the Affordable Care Act. It is arguable regardless of whether Mr. Romney would be a bad president, but it is honorable in the context of the Republican nominating contest to argue before the primary voters that Romneycare is too much a template for Obamacare, 10′th Amendment considerations aside.
But Mr. Santorum “just losing it” with a reporter and dropping the Wisconsin cow pie on the guy, metaphorically speaking, how is he going to react when he is President of the United States and is going to get taunted by that guy-in-Iran-with-the-long-name? A President cannot fly off the handle like that, or at least not in front of cameras and open mikes, even when taking action against an enemy, foreign or domestic.
This brings us back to Mr. Gingrinch as the remaining choice, or heaven help us, Ron Paul. Should I vote for Mr. Santorum in hope of a brokered convention?
Should I vote for Mr. Santorum in hope of a brokered convention?
I can’t think of any other reason to do so.
Prof. Jacobson’s round-up of day 1.
No, vote for Ron Paul in hopes of a brokered convention. He is quietly (well not really, but you’d think so from what pap the ‘media’ feeds us) collecting large numbers of delegates in caucus states and via other means. The flashy events the media fed us in many cases have little to do with who actually is going to the convention in Tampa and who they actually will vote for. For example, Ron Paul’s people swept the ticket in St Louis city district and took a majority in another of the most populous counties in Mo. They are collecting delegates all over the country. It is going to be a very interesting convention… and the country club Republicans do not like it one little bit. I mean the very idea! Actually standing for something and having a commitment to real policies and actions that are consistant and principled! How could anyone be so lame? Don’t they know that politicians stand for election? Why should they stand for anything else?
Assuming we want a brokered convention (absolutely!) What should Newt do once we get to the final winner take all states and what happens with the delegates he’s collected so far?
Is a none of the above candidate possible?
I’ve argued for 3 years now that this election does not really matter.Nothing that has transpired has changed my mind in any significant way. We are wile e coyote we are already off the cliff and just haven’t looked down yet.
If I was given the power of kingmaker I might appoint Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. Putting a pro liberty candidate in the office of president only to watch the edifice crumble, and thus give them the blame is unattractive.
I’m not sure that leaving the democrat statists in place so they can reap the credit they so richly deserve would be a bad idea.
How dare you equate real people to cartoon characters! I may have to use my illudium Q-36 blaster on ya.
…and I suspect you are right.
I’m not sure that leaving the democrat statists in place so they can reap the credit they so richly deserve would be a bad idea.
The next president will get credit for the slow but inevitable economic recovery. If Obama wins, and Obamacare survives the court challenges, he and the Democrats will get credit for that too (note how popular Romneycare is in MA). Plus there may be Supreme Court vacancies to fill, and there will certainly be lots of federal bench slots.
To advance a party’s interests you want to hold the White House when things are getting better, and be out of power when they fall apart. As presidential elections go, 2004 was a good one to lose. 2012 is a good one to win.
The next president will get credit for the slow but inevitable economic recovery.
They won’t, if it doesn’t happen (at least with respect to unemployment).
To advance a party’s interests you want to hold the White House when things are getting better, and be out of power when they fall apart. As presidential elections go, 2004 was a good one to lose. 2012 is a good one to win.
When your blinders aren’t on, you can actually make some interesting points.
“The next president will get credit for the slow but inevitable economic recovery. ”
You’re very optimistic.
Is there any way to challenge a Supreme Court ruling as tainted? This one is tainted from the word go by Kagan’s participation, and I’ve seen no one on the Left even bothered to try to argue otherwise. It’s simply breathtaking how corrupt this process is.
I don’t think so. It’s worth remembering that any legal process which could force the recusal of a Supreme Court justice in a case can be abused.
Actually, Congress can impeach and remove a Supreme Court justice. I gather that is the sole legal curb to the actions of the Court (well, aside from the other two branches just ignoring them, I suppose).
Ooooohhhhhhh!!!!!!!! THAT sounds delicious!
There’s the Andrew Jackson method.
The testimony today was mind numbing. It’s distressing to hear them beat the weeds on such a fundamental liberty issue.
Yesterday’s issue was pretty weedy. Today’s will be more meaty.