Category Archives: Political Commentary

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

We Band Of Brothers

5 Comments

Bill Whittle has some waning-days election thoughts:

If we are mark’d to lose, we are enow
To do our party loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
Let he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not vote in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to vote with us.
This day is call’d the eve of Elect-ian.
He that votes this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Republican
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is the fourth of November’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his hands,
And say ‘With these I moved yon levers on election day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What votes he did cast that day.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that shares his vote with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen and lady pundits now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their book deals cheap whilst any speaks
That voted with us upon election day.

As he says, the asteroid is only inevitable if we believe it is.

Philosophy, Political Commentary

Food For Thought

6 Comments

From Robert Heinlein:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

[Via Instapundit]

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Well, That’s Refreshing

12 Comments

Usually, when a politician makes a gaffe, they try to explain it away, or say “what I meant was…”

Lawrence Eagleburger has a novel approach. He just said to Stuart Varney on Cavuto’s show that “I was stupid,” to explain his gaffe. He made up for it, by 1) pointing out that the Democrat presidential nominee is much less prepared than she is, and wrong on the foreign policy issues and 2) apologizing to the McCain campaign and governor Palin.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Pied Piper

…of Hyde Park:

The piper from Hyde Park has tougher work, not with rats with sharp teeth but with evil Republicans deserving of a death more painful than drowning. Humorless, self-righteous and immensely proud of himself, he employs his gift of “a unique ability to identify with children” to lure the grown-up children. His success as a spinner of “fairy tales,” as Bill Clinton called them in a fit of unexpected candor, is a tale of credulity run amok. Americans who look like grownups swoon like pimpled teenagers at the mention of his name, and brook no criticism however mild or reasoned the reservations. Polite questions are verboten, as Joe the Plumber learned. Scholars will write about this weird delirium in decades to come; the prudent are saving string for their Ph.D. theses. For now it’s prudent to hunker down and observe the disciplined march to the river.

Let’s hope they stop at the river bank on Tuesday.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Calming Down The Eeyores

Moral support for McCain supporters from Hizzbuzz:

The ONLY way McCain loses this race is if the media, operating as a full-fledged wing of the Obama campaign, breeds enough Eeyores amongst you to keep enough people home for Obama to squeak out wins. Hillary Clinton should have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, by larger margins that she did. Ohio should have been a 13-point win, Pennsylvania should have been a 12-point win, and Indiana should have been a 9-point win. Eeyores staying home, saying, “Oh bother, TV say me stay home, me sad, need dydee changed!” is what cost Hillary those extra points.

Don’t be Eeyores on Tuesday! Get those Eeyore butts off your couches, away from toxic TV, and GO VOTE. Get everyone you know to vote — tell them if they don’t, then Obama will turn America socialist, and we’re going to start with their house and bank account when we begin redistributing wealth. That should motivate them.

I don’t know if McCain will pull it out, but it’s going to be a lot closer than many have been predicting.

Political Commentary

The Libertarian Case For McCain

1 Comment

David Bernstein and Ilya Somin make it.

I agree with Bernstein generally, but this is a key point, I think:

Libertarians have been heavily involved in some of the most important constitutional Supreme Court litigation of the last two decades, either in terms of bringing the case, being among the most important advocates of one side’s constitutional theory, or both. Among the cases in this category are Lopez, Morrison, Boy Scouts v. Dale, U.S. Term Limits, Grutter, Gratz, Kelo, Raich, Heller, and probably a few more that I’m not thinking of offhand. With the minor exception of Justice Breyers’ vote in Gratz, in each of these cases, the ONLY votes the libertarian side received were from Republican appointees, and all of the Democrat appointees, plus the more liberal Republican appointees, ALWAYS voted against the libertarian side. The latter did so even in cases in which their political preferences were either irrelevant (Term Limits), or should have led them to sympathize with the plaintiff (Lopez, Kelo, Raich).

The only exception to this pattern is Lawrence v. Texas, in which Justice Kennedy seems to have been influenced by the Cato Institute’s brief. But if the liberals had been able to muster five votes without Kennedy, I’m sure the opinion would have been quite different, less libertarian and more about “tiers of scrutiny” and whatnot. I’m a law professor, teach constitutional law, and the subject is dear to my heart. I’d much rather have the side that tends to take my ideological compatriots’ constitutional arguments seriously on the Court. And Raich and Kelo, respectively, suggest that the liberals on the Court not only don’t take libertarian arguments seriously, they don’t believe in (a) any limits in federal regulatory power, whatsoever; or in (b) property rights, even when big corporations are using the political process to screw over the little guy.

I also agree with Ilya that it’s very important to have divided government right now, at least as much as a pseudo-Democrat in the White House will provide that.