ObamaCare Ruled Constitutional
ObamaCare has been found constitutional by a federal judge. Hot Air has the money quote from the decision:
While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.
Allahpundit gives you the dire analysis:
[I]f we’re all necessarily “active” in health-care commerce at all times, theoretically there’s no limit to what sort of further activity can be mandated in the interest of spreading costs. Can the overweight man or woman be forced to diet because he/she is more likely to need medical services? Presumably that would be dealt with via higher insurance premiums, but we all know only too well already that federal pressure on insurers to keep premiums down will create all sorts of inefficiencies, which is where we get into ye olde rationing problem. Simple question: What’s the limiting principle on this decision? Would the feds be barred from penalizing people for failing to maintain, say, a certain BMI target because of the right of privacy or bodily autonomy, etc? Or would they not be barred at all? Where does this end?
Answer: it doesn’t. This was decided in principle decades ago in Wickard v. Filburn. When you lose a presidential election, you get presidents who appoint horrible judges. Horrible judges issue horrible decisions — and the precedents live on long after the judges are dead.
Tell me again how voting for “pure” candidates is so important that it would be acceptable to lose ten elections in a row? You want centuries of decisions like this, keep up that brilliant strategy.
You’ll destroy the Constitution in the process. But at least you’ll keep that frisson of self-righteousness. And in the end, isn’t that what really matters?
First, there is a positive side to this. i expect some of the other cases to go the other way. so a little disagreement among the circuits might get a supreme court precedent faster. And i think that the SC is probably going to kick this down, especially if the Dems lose all of congress.
Second, i think the problem with these posts is that you are treating activist judging as the greatest threat this nation faces. But it isn’t. the debt, for instance, is a far more urgent problem–and indeed, the courts are not going to be able to do very much about that.
Further, when it comes to the federal bench, the problem isn’t the congress. it is the president. Republicans especially are always reluctant to vote against a nominee based on ideology. So republicans, even in power, are not likely to stop the bad appointments. I mean didn’t Ginsberg get something like 90+ votes in the senate when Clinton nominated her? And certainly Ginsberg is smart enough to be a S.C. justice; the republican objection is more to her ideology than her intelligence or ability.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:46 amThanks for the lesson. Follow my links and see if you think I understand that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:49 amLosing the next ten elections means losing the next 5 presidential elections. A point I have made repeatedly.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:50 amYou’re right. I was wrong to say we can’t afford to lose the next ten elections. Losing the next ten elections ought to cure the debt problem quite nicely.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:52 am“So republicans, even in power, are not likely to stop the bad appointments.”
A.W. – O believe republicans have become much more willing to vote against bad appointments than they were 15 years ago, but time will tell.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:55 amWho voted for this twit, when he was up for nomination and why, when Estrada and Rogers Brown
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:57 amwere stymied in their quest for judgeships
Who appointed John Paul Stevens?
Ken Hahn (a6cded) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:04 amThe healthcare market is like no other? As a result of prior government intervention?
I’d like to debate that with the judge.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:06 amIt’s a pity you can’t see the cognitive dissidence between your viewpoint in this post and your viewpoint in the one that immediately preceeds it. You are so invested in saying “I told you so” about O’Donnell, you just can’t bring yourself to say anything positive about her. Every day brings a new opportunity for you to find another way to sneer and mock. Yet, you don’t understand why others can’t just support RINOs for the greater good.
Anon Y. Mous (50aff6) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:17 amSo voting would voting for a moderate Republican like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe over a conservative candidate would prevent the appointment of a make-crap-up-as-you-go judge, like, say, Sonya Sotomayer or Elena Kagan? Just curious.
Tom Seaver (43a397) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:18 amRemind me again who appointed Justice Souter to the Supreme Court?
Monty (327ae0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:28 amPatterico
> see if you think I understand that.
To be honest, i didn’t think it was that clear. But looking at your links now, I can see now you did understand it. just I hope you don’t think I was intentionally murdering that straw man. it was more like negligent strawmanicide.
Still even a moderate president who will win might not be so good either. For example, like alot of people i considered George H.W. Bush to be a moderate. And look who he nominated. Thomas and Souter. Without Souter, Roe v. Wade might have been a dead letter by now, and maybe a few other questionable rulings wouldn’t have been issued. By comparison, i consider Bush Jr. to have been much more conservative (though not completely) and look who he nominated? Roberts and Alito.
And then there is the electability of conservatives. one of the things that dogged Bush Sr. was the believe that he didn’t have a clear vision. And i heard some complaints in a similar vein with mccain. By comparison, i heard none of that kind of griping with reagan, and very little of it with Bush Jr. and they both served two terms. indeed, do you think Bush Sr. would have been president at all if he was not Reagan’s veep?
Now that’s a small sample, so you can’t judge too much. But you see my point. Its not altogether clear that a moderate will win.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:33 amTell me again how voting for “pure” candidates is so important that it would be acceptable to lose ten elections in a row? You want centuries of decisions like this, keep up that brilliant strategy.
Maybe I am wrong, but is this not a false straw man? A lot of assumptions there … biggest one being that people will keep making the “same mistake” for like 40 years in a row. Sounds like a false choice to me.
You’ll destroy the Constitution in the process.
This is my favorite. First, it is already being destroyed by not demanding any “purity” or as I like to call it demanding accountability. Anyone remember that the Health Care Bill got out of committee because a Maine RINO let it out?
But what galls me further is the presumption by the legal profession that the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper to most lawyers who use it for whatever purpose suits them.
It explains how the “General Welfare” provision has become a be all and end all to the Feds doing whatever they want. Pass No Law …. Separation as Church and State …. has been perverted too.
Hate to say but the Constitution has become whatever one set of people in power want it to be.
And that maybe the reason many Tea Party types don’t buy this “purity put down” by many.
But hey …. whatever. What do I know. I don’t have a Law degree and I don’t live off the Government.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:36 amThe best way is to take over 39 state legislatures and simple fix the Constitution. It’s supremely inevitable, ever since Malbury and that thingy about judge restraining themselves, that judges view restain as too restraining. Fact of life, fact of power. ‘Tis the things revolutions are made.
cedarhill (5103c7) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:43 amJust for the record, progressive moderates are quite happy with activist/collectivist maneuvers. All in the name of reaching across the aisle. Check Mike Castle’s body of work and you’ll find a utopian slant to quell the masses, from DISCLOSE to cap & kill.
Hopefully Aaron’s summary at #1 is where things might go..
Vermont Neighbor (86779a) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:44 am“And that maybe the reason many Tea Party types don’t buy this “purity put down” by many.”
Javert_is_alive! (AKA …) – No, you switched to using the word “principles” after being called on your gloating on kicking RINOs out for their lack of ideological purity. The record is clear that you want it both ways, hypocrite. Make up your mind.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:52 am#16, I have already said I am a hypocrite.
Notwithstanding, I don’t have a clue what you are writing about.
Please clarify so that I may respond in kind (and without insulting you personally either).
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:58 amEven if the GOP does win both houses in November and the executive in 2012, it will be at least a generation to undo the damage already done, mainly because of judges like this one and the body of precedent that exists. If the government can force you into decisions for your own health (except for abortion, where your privacy is unassailable), what can’t it do?
That’s IF the GOP cuts spending and reduces the debt and the reach of government. I do think that probably the only way out is…well, that’s too depressing to talk about. On to November.
Patricia (9b018a) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:58 am“Losing the next ten elections means losing the next 5 presidential elections. A point I have made repeatedly.
Comment by Patterico — 10/8/2010 @ 7:50 am”
There is no absolute certainty in politics except that one side will some of the times and the other side will the other times. The only way the republicans will win enough times to be a meaningful force is to be a more activist party. RINO’s just won’y cut it. A sufficient number of activist republicans in the senate will block any democrat nominee that is unacceptable ideologically no matter what their qualifications. The activist will filibuster bad picks. The senate is not obligated to approve any presidential nominee.
This year the energy is on the right/libertarian side. Yes O’Donnell will lose. No her loss will not be the deciding seat in the senate. Enough tea party style activist get elected to the senate and Obama might as well not bother to nominate another judge for the rest of his term.
The real question is if in this case and the others being litigated is whether or not The Supreme Court will recognize that Wickard went too far and restrict the original and subsequent decisions to a more rational scheme. Wickard taken to it’s logical conclusion is that anything that can be reduced to an economic activity,no matter how far a stretch. can be regulated by Congress. It’s an invitation to grant Congress and by extension the executive branch near absolute power thus rendering the constitution meaningless. Each step forward by Congress under the assumed power granted to it by Wickard brings an even greater role and intrusion over our lives by the government. Each step gets bolder as resistance wanes. What we need are militants in the resistance to this ever increasing power over our lives not RINO accommodationist. Rest assured the left will take to heart a massive republican victory in November, the lesson being the mirror of ours, out with the DINO’s as they perceive them. They to0 will fight in their primaries to get their activist candidates on the ballot. The next 5 0r 10 election cycles will be far more polarized than the last 10 as the country starts to have a major political tectonic shift until a new equilibrium is reached. One thing is for sure, RINO’s are at best a dead end and at worst will help tip the scales to the other side.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:02 amPatricia,
The single fastest way to stop this is DEFUND GOVERNMENT.
The second this happens and Fed Parasite go home with tiny paychecks,or none at all, they will get back to doing something of value.
I would push/support a 20% reduction in nominal budgets for all non-military and benefit spending. Each department in government would need to either fire its way or reduce wages — whatever. Then put into law a 20 year moratorium on any increase in nominal budgets.
This can be done lots faster than arguing with lawyers about nonsense and “the law” which they seek to pervert at every turn to pursue their own agendas.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:03 amThe government will have to pry the money from my cold, dead bank accounts!
Alvar Hanso (cbe55d) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:11 amLook at what has happened in Britain with the so called conservatives, who have evolved into a form of Labor Lite. Real conservatives there have no place to go. I realize that our own parties are already coalitions, but without principles, we will all end up holding our noses and voting for the least awful.
Bar Sinister (a148e1) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:16 am_________________________________________
Tell me again how voting for “pure” candidates is so important that it would be acceptable to lose ten elections in a row?
Not much less pathetic are “centrists” or so-called independents (who actually are closeted liberals) or superficial conservatives who allow pangs of liberal emotion to get the better of them on certain occasions. So they consent to, and shrug off, voting for liberals/Democrats.
For instance, there is a wealthy Republican businessman in LA who for some absurd reason believes Jerry Brown would make a fine governor. I’ve read that person say he wants someone with “experience” in the state’s top political office. [roll eyes]
I know a few people of generally rightist persuasion — among family, friends, in the public — who pulled the lever for Obama back in 2008 because the foolishness of “allowing a bit of progressivism means we’re so impartial, sophisticated and worldly!” reaction can overwhelm even people who should know better. IOW, even those with enough common sense who should be fully aware of the ramifications of pushing “lefties” into positions of great influence.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:19 am“Please clarify so that I may respond in kind (and without insulting you personally either).”
Javert_is_alive! (AKA …) – I was merely suggesting that you take a position and stick to it since you are already on record agreeing with the position you disagree with in your earlier comment. But there is no reason to be consistent on my behalf. Change arguments as often as you change screen names. Some people care about intellectual honesty, others don’t. People can decide for themselves where you fit in the picture.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:21 am___________________________________________
it will be at least a generation to undo the damage already done
I’ve seen idiotic decisions made within the past few years handed down by people in the judicial system who were selected by Jimmy Carter back in the late 1970s. That’s a gift that keeps on giving from OVER 30 years ago.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:23 am#24, You accuse me of something and I asking you to clarify the charges. I have no idea what you think I am being dishonest of?
If you can clear your mind, put down the whiskey rage, and write clearly — maybe I’ll surprise you and provide you an answer to your allegation.
Until them you simply (as usual) smear me and provide ZERO evidence to support the smear?
To quote the Grandma in American Pie — “FOCUS FOCUS!”
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:34 amJavert_is_alive! (AKA …) – I believe I was perfectly clear. Interpret as you will.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:45 am#27, So you can’t or you won’t. Typical.
Still unclear what exactly you are insulting me over.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:51 amJust to step back in, do any of you have decent suggestions for curbing the power of federal judges? I mean legal, non-violent suggestions. I don’t know enough about the legal systems to come up with viable ideas that do not involve rifles.
Bar Sinister (a148e1) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:56 amTell me again how voting for “pure” candidates is so important that it would be acceptable to lose ten elections in a row?
To paraphrase Ignacio Montoya “You keep using that [phrase]…I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
As has been pointed out before, people like Arlen Specter are no help to Republicans, let alone conservatives. They are a tremendous help to the Left which can put forward a figleaf of “bipartisanship” on policy/legislation that compromises the Constitution.
Clarity before agreement … how do you explain to people what you stand for when your actions demonstrate you’re willing to compromise your principles for expediency? No change or moderate or hold a combo of principles but compromise your principles?
After the last couple of election cycles when it becomes clear that stirring a cup full of liberal excrement into a gallon of ice cream does not make RINOs palatable, there has to be a moment when clear choices have to be offered.
Will there be losses? Of course, because RINOs and their pragmatic cousins are accepted and acceptable to the Progressive dominated media. There is no reason that the large numbers of conservatives vote Dem, save for the 24/7 demonizing of Republicans/conservatives/libertarians. Paul Ryan talks about his Road Map and the counter argument is along the lines of “he’s a kook out to kill seniors.”
Obama is not a good man. Neither is Reid, Grayson or Pelosi. Time is well past for principled conservatives/classical liberals to assert themselves over the “pragmatists”.
darleen (75f31b) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:01 am#27, still grasping at your garbled prose ….. so is your entire argument based on the fact I change “principles” with idealogical purity?
That is to say the following two statements are contradictory in your mind and make me a bad man ….
I am gloating at Mike Castle’s loss to O’Donnell because Mike Castle is not as ideologically pure as O’Donnell.
I am gloating at Mike Castle’s loss to O’Donnell because Mike Castle is not as principled as O’Donnell.
… which then translates in you mind as …..
Mike Castle is more principled than O’Donnell because we have not caught him lying as often as O’Donnell. Therefore, even though O’Donnell is more idealogically pure I can not vote for her because she is not as principled.
… to which I respond “principled” is a fungible definition context to this discussion because to me Castle (RINOs) are neither principled nor idealogically pure.
So in that sense I have used them interchangeably to my great shame but as with most lawyers/lawyers wannabees this miss the forest from the trees out of either malfeasance or willful neglect/ignorance
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:03 amOr to put it another way Daley.
Lying about your resume does not disqualify you in my book to represent me.
Lying about how you would actually vote in office and then covering up your votes, does disqualify you.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:05 amOr even more nuanced …
A legislator who breaks the law, bangs 13 year old boys, and wears a Jim Traficant toupe but represents truthfully how he votes and votes as he promises when running for office.
…. IS MUCH BETTER THAN ….
A pure as the driven snow honest man who conducts his personal life with great honor but systematically mis-represents how he would vote and votes contrary to what he represents.
…. but I am not a lawyer nor am I a moralist so I don’t get wrapped up in process. I like results that I seek above all.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:12 amDarleen @30 nailed it. Well said. We’ve suffered enough Arlen Specters.
Old Coot (ac0ff6) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:12 am#33, better b/c you know where they stand and can vote as you feel just.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:18 am__________________________________________
Lying about your resume does not disqualify you in my book to represent me.
How about a chameleon-like ideology? The following points to the person in question being a flake. And flaky behavior tends to be aligned with leftist tendencies and biases.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:20 am#36, So O’Donnell is less sharp version of Specter. If true then f* her too.
Regardless, your point actually validates mine and you misquoted me on purpose …. i wrote …..
Lying about your resume does not disqualify you in my book to represent me.
Lying about how you would actually vote in office and then covering up your votes, does disqualify you.
You are alleging she is in violation of #2 and #1. #1 is a venial sin. #2 a cardinal sin.
Easy to understand if you can walk and chew gum.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:25 amThe federal government has no enumerated power to either force insurance providers to provide health insurance to citizens, or to force me to buy health insurance.
The law is flatly unconstitutional (all of it).
As usual, a judge simply ignores what the Constitution says when it says something the judge doesn’t like.
Dave Surls (f8cfb4) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:35 amTo get the candidates you want, you need to enroll enough people in the principles that make us free. Once you do that, the candidates will be fine. A number of you sound like we can’t change people and have to go with what we’ve got.
Bush was fine militarily and on judges, but was horrible on deficits along with the Republican majority. His compassionate conservatism was a euphemism for redistribution, albeit at a much milder level than the democrats put out. You don’t have compassion without free choice. If the government does it by force there is no virtue in it. I voted for Bush because the establishment GOP shoehorned him in. I resented it then and resent it even more now. I helped vote Bennett out. I’m happy I did.
Now, when I read an article at Huff Post this morning one of the other headlines there was that high profile GOP people are endorsing Reid. See this.
So much for purity.
Jeff Mitchell (0204be) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:41 amMark
Perhaps the most biting line in the call delivered by Murray: “She wasn’t concerned about conservative causes. O’Donnell just wanted to make a buck.”
That’s a comment about O’Donnell’s motives/sincerity. What has O’Donnell said or done herself that indicates a “chameleon-like ideology”?
darleen (75f31b) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:46 amDarleen Click!
Bob (462b3f) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:01 amSome folks are mentioning the GOP nominations of Stevens and Souter. Fair enough — and add Brennan and Warren to that mix. BUT, that doesn’t undercut Patrick’s point.
Democrat presidents’ modern SCOTUS picks NEVER disappoint the left remotely as much/ as often. You’d have to go back to Felix Frankfurter to find a disappointment-to-the-left appointed by Democrat.
So we have to keep electing GOP presidents (and senators) if we even HOPE to have a CHANCE at neutral umpires on SCOTUS. Like Roberts and Alito, most recently.
Mitch (890cbf) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:04 amDarleen:
You say:
Who said anything about Arlen Specter? I have opposed him at every point. When he came up for the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee I opposed him.
What I have been addressing is the assertion made by Jeff Goldstein that it is better to lose the next ten elections rather than vote for people who are insufficiently “pure.” if we lose the next ten elections we will lose the presidency for two decades, and the precedents set by the judges appointed will last for generations. We will effectively be ripping up the Constitution for the sake of feeling self-righteous about never voting for a non-“pure” candidate.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:08 pmJavert_is_alive! (AKA …) – If you keep grasping and distorting you may eventually latch onto something valid, just like a monkey with a typewriter may eventually write a real sentence.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:14 pm________________________________________
What has O’Donnell said or done herself that indicates a “chameleon-like ideology”?
All I can go on are the comments and observations of a person who dealt with O’Donnell on an up-close-and-personal basis. Of course, just because someone directly knows someone doesn’t mean he or she necessarily will be a better judge of that person. But if I have a choice between the assumptions (and wishes) of those who are a million miles removed from O’Donnell compared with someone who scrutinized her personally and directly, I’ll rely on the latter, not the former.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:14 pmShe’s also expressed a tremendous amount of class-warfare rhetoric, has weaseled when asked how her own debt practice related to her plans for a federal budget, etc.
You can state her defense like Darleen has, alluding to her perfect record with zero actions contrary to promises. That’s disingenuous, because she’s never been elected. Her record on her word is terrible, and people are reasonable to not trust a pathological deadbeat to balance the budget.
There’s a lot of other material, but you have to really get more personal with her than I’m comfortable doing. The long and short of it is that she was unelectable, and many rejected the ‘nominate the most conservative person who can win’ idea.
While many have only recently heard of this candidate, Delaware is a tiny state, easy for a candidate to reach, and that’s why Delaware seems to have moved very little on a candidate they have known for years. She says “I’m you” to people who keep voting for someone else. Admittedly, part of the reason they vote for someone else is their liberalism.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:20 pm“Clarity before agreement … how do you explain to people what you stand for when your actions demonstrate you’re willing to compromise your principles for expediency?”
darleen – Are you willing to lose ten elections in a row to be able to say you are maintaining your principles? Visiting commenters from Protein Wisdom have been noticeably unwilling to answer that question, preferring instead to distort what Patrick has said or to just dodge the question. The behavior is odd given the site’s commenters consider themselves superior and the proposition of losing ten elections was advanced by the site’s host. Milton v7.1 Intentionalism Lost.
Patrick has explained circumstances in which he is willing to compromise his principles on this site and perhaps you missed it. It bears no resemblance to what you described. Who could have seen that coming?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:25 pmAnd I think this is finally a pretty good answer the Jeff’s hypo. Darleen is saying she is unwilling to compromise for expediency, and in such an absolute manner than it is condemnable for anyone to be willing.
That is an extreme position to take.
Its counter is any degree of compromise.
I see people pretending the counter is to elect Arlen Specter, but that’s a strawman. In some places, like Cali and Mass and Delaware, we can realize massive ideological improvements over the alternative if we made certain levels of compromise.
In TEXAS, we cannot elect a pure conservative, and must make some degree of compromise in order to see the best attainable result.
It’s amazing how much rhetorical clawing is needed just to prove the obvious: we cannot tolerate losing tons of winnable elections. That’s not the only thing we can’t tolerate… of course, we can’t tolerate Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter, either. We have to find the correct level of compromise, rather than taking the intellectually lazy POV that none is somehow a magic cure for the GOP brand.
In fact, O’donnell, for all her ideological correctness, is more harmful to the GOP than many RINOs would be.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:36 pmThe states need to hold a constitutional convention and make the following constitutional amendments:
1. Strike the commerce clause
2. Strike the general welfare clause (if they lost the commerce clause, this would be the socialists’ next justification for continuing the welfare state)
3. Repeal amendments 16 and 17
4. Augment amendment 22 by imposing two-term limits for senators and four-term limits for representatives
5. Copy the Section 10 requirement that “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” to section 8.
Do these things and we’ll have our republic back.
Nobody special (6cdbb4) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:14 pm_________________________________________
and that’s why Delaware seems to have moved very little on a candidate they have known for years.
I’m puzzled by that vote of confidence in her. She must be either a witch who has placed a spell on various people in Delaware [sarc alert!] or, more likely, she’s to various rightist voters what scroungy Bill and Hillary are to a good number of leftist voters. IOW, a peculiar fondness for a politician’s persona (or so-called charisma), mixed in with his or her ideology being tilted in the correct direction, real or imagined.
One thing about O’Donnell is she confirms that my disdain for the Clintons through all these years goes beyond the purely ideological. That’s because even though O’Donnell perhaps (and perhaps only) at least is aligned to the right, she still earns a thumbs down from me.
However, I do admit that if I were registered to vote in Delaware, and I was facing a ballot listing Coons versus O’Donnell, I’d punch the chad for the latter. But unlike all the people (most of them of the left) who swoon for the Clintons, I’d always be embarrassed to admit that I gave a “yes” vote to O’Donnell. So I’m only partially amoral or sleazy.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:21 pmThe facts are they have lost a lot of winnable elections in that state, and she had very little to do with it. She wasn’t as terribly successful as another FDU grad whose political allegiances turned out to be terribly fluid, of late. Since she chose the nonprofit field, and issue advocacy of various types
As with North, to whom their were related issues, raised about his veracity, she’s not going away anytime soon, in fact she maybe even more influential out of office, then at least in this first term, so if you think you’re getting rid of her, you have another thing coming
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:27 pm> She must be either a witch who has placed a spell on various people in Delawar
Let’s put in some CCR!
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:28 pmWhy don’t they do what they say,
Say what they mean,
One thing leads to another
The FIXX I think
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:37 pmYou’re right, and I’m avoiding complaining about it, but it’s a real shame.
However, she may just become a TV personality for a left wing host. The great thing about O’Donnell is that she has shown conservative candidates they can win this GOP primary, so hopefully these candidates run.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:49 pmDustin you are either confusing her, with Arianna Huffington, or Clayton Williams, both are category
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 2:01 pmerrors, or if you want to back further down memory
lane, Lena Guerrero
I think it is just plain reasonable to compare O’Donnell to Guerrero!
One thing I liked about Guerrero is that she hated that One Tough Grandma mother of Scott McClellan. One thing only.
I never could stand Carole Rylander Strayhorn’s entire little pack of folks (my wife is friends with some of her last campaign’s staff). Carole ruined Guerrero, justifiably, for inflating her education credentials. She actually fed that bit to Karl Rove, before he was working for Bush in the early 1990s.
Strayhorn was a democrat turned Republican, and really ingratiated herself well with Rove and other GOP players in Texas politics. Her kid was crony selected to be the White House Press Secretary even though he was woefully poor at that work.
Alas, you simply cannot trust those kinds of wheelers and dealers. Strayhorn refused to drop out after losing the Governor primary a few years ago, and her son wrote a smear book about his boss.
That’s the type of people Christine O’Donnell’s supporters seem motivated to fight, bringing the whole thing full circle in that half-assed-no-actual-relationship sort of way. Guerrero’s dead, so I won’t trample on her.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 2:23 pmBTW, O’Donnell had a recent interview on CNN where she was pretty impressive on Obamacare, IMO.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 2:32 pmAnd Papa McClellan was certifiably nuts, as he proved to be, that whole crew is like the story of the frog and scorpion.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 2:35 pmAbsolutely. It’s so annoying when I think about it. I’ve worked on a few campaigns, and of course there are plenty of striver types in politics, but generally folks on campaigns believe in stuff.
I’ve never seen such a back of politically agnostic strivers as the kinds of folks who inhabit a turncoat’s campaign. Blind ambition with no extrinsic justification.
I’d trust a damn communist more than one of these people.
/a little bitter
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 2:46 pmWho said anything about Arlen Specter? I have opposed him at every point. When he came up for the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee I opposed him.
What I have been addressing is the assertion made by Jeff Goldstein that it is better to lose the next ten elections rather than vote for people who are insufficiently “pure.” if we lose the next ten elections we will lose the presidency for two decades, and the precedents set by the judges appointed will last for generations. We will effectively be ripping up the Constitution for the sake of feeling self-righteous about never voting for a non-”pure” candidate.
Comment by Patterico — 10/8/2010 @ 12:08 pm
I absolutely agree. The other day I was talking to a family member about this and he was going on and on about how the Republicans should have stopped Obama’s justices from being confirmed…when I pointed out that there were not enough of them to do that, he started going on about the Republicans who did vote to confirm…I told him that if that some conservatives who sat out the last election on the grounds that McCain was not conservative enough for them had voted Republican maybe we would not have a liberal president who nominated people like this in the first place. Elections do matter and when you hand the reigns of power to someone like Obama then you can count on liberal judges, complaining that a minority of Republicans did not do enough to stem the tide is a waste of time.
Terrye (ce0d6f) — 10/8/2010 @ 2:58 pmI don’t know why this is so hard to understand and why it keeps needing to be repeated.
If you vote for people because of a label, such as (R), but you can’t count on them to vote (R) most of the time, then don’t expect to be happy when they are elected.
If you vote only for people who are Grade A certified and labeled according to your own liking, they will never get elected.
Somewhere in between are many unreasonable compromises, and sometimes a reasonable compromise or two.
Many people will claim to be an expert on where that reasonable compromise is. A few who don’t claim to be experts may actually have some wise thoughts that others should listen to.
In the meantime, people who make decisions without a factual basis or in spite of the facts are going to make all us unhappy, and too many people are acting like tobacco-chewing llamas and making a mess spitting.
To paraphrase, electing representatives to government by the general populace is a proven foolish, absurd, and downright stupid way to make a government, but no other method has been shown tp be better.
MD in Philly (edd1cf) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:16 pmMD:
You are ignoring the fact that we have a two party system. It is ridiculous to complain that liberal Democrats put liberals in positions of power if you are going to just sit back and let them win. It is also ridiculous to ignore the attitudes and prejudices and demographics of a particular region and assume that you can demand that the people of that region vote only for pure conservatives.
The truth is we are better off with some people like Scott Brown in there because the more Rs there are, the fewer Ds there are. We can talk about purity and only voting for true blue conservatives and ignoring party all we want, but that will not change the fact that the Democrats have a machine and they will use it. Politics is about winning elections. If you don’t do that, the rest of it is just talk.
Terrye (ce0d6f) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:28 pmI don’t think MD is ignoring that, Terrye. I think he’s realizing we have to work with it. Primaries without losing sight of general election prospects, by trusting this limited group of people who want to be politicians = a mess requiring everyone to be realistic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:30 pmMaybe we should stop pretending that the two-party system is a good one.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:33 pmThe people I’m most exasperated by are the “my way or the highway” types who demand that a non-liberal (I won’t even say conservative or Republican) candidate be perfect in every way possible. That may be a reasonable expectation in an alternative reality, but this is America 2010 — and Western Civilization 21st century — we’re talking about.
However, they’d be somewhat excused if everyone around them is solidly of their ideological ilk. So the mindset of “doesn’t EVERYONE share my POV?!!” certainly applies to all the liberals hanging out in leftist citadels like Manhattan, West LA, San Francisco, Boston, Detroit, Oakland, Venezuela, the Third World, etc. IOW, there is a lot of mindless leftism out there and I find it hard to believe that rightists don’t realize that every time they talk with various family members, friends co-workers, acquaintances, neighbors, etc.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:42 pmAnd I’m not even including all the closeted liberals in that mix.
Who pretended that?
Me? MD?
We think it’s better than, say, a PR system. Though sometimes I really wonder if you’re right about that stuff. Hopefully, over time, this Tea Party resurgence works out to sever much of the interparty backroom dealing that has damaged our country.
At any rate, we’re not really under any illusions. The 2 party system is difficult, and those difficulties are actually powerful protections against many problems.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:44 pmTerrye pretended it, in #62.
The separation of powers protects us against those “many problems” that you mention (and I agree they exist); but the two-party system
fuck it.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:50 pmI wonder what some Congress or Executive would have to do to make this Judge think they had exceeded their boundaries.
JD (5202ad) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:50 pmAaron Worthing: Somewhere, John Fogerty is smiling.
Old Coot (ac0ff6) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:54 pmSorry. I don’t want to preach – hence “fuck it.”
We sit here wringing our hands over who’s the lesser of two evils and why; and we try twist ourselves into knots trying to justify support for one shitty candidate over another. We realize that both are terrible – so why not demand more than two? We figure that a loss for a terrible candidate like O’Donnell is a win for a terrible candidate like Coons and vice versa; but we don’t realize that we could all win by re-framing victory as gaining an accurate voice in the Legislature, rather than continuing to think of it as control over the trough.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:55 pmDustin:
I see what you mean. As for the two party system, it is the nature of our political system. We do not have a parliamentary system in this country, it is a winner take all kind of system. There are some limits on majority rule, but we do not work by forming coalition governments. After all, who wins the elections decides what party runs the committees and that in turn decides what the agenda is.
Terrye (368a41) — 10/8/2010 @ 4:05 pmWe have to hope that a different tack is taken by the Court hearing the AG’s suit against ObamaCare, and that the Supreme’s will settle this in a proper manner (overturning Wickard would be nice) and giving back to the Commerce Clause some teeth against the depredations of Congress.
AD-RtR/OS! (8acc09) — 10/8/2010 @ 4:19 pmI don’t think Christine O’Donnell is not going to win in Delaware because she told Fox’s Hannity program about month ago that she will not do anymore interviews until after the election is over. Now, she was on CNN just recently. Christine look actually so strange on CNN.
The ObamaCare is not a Constitutional. Hope the Republican win both US House and US Senate in November. God help us.
ml (fc559b) — 10/8/2010 @ 4:45 pmDarleen, y’all love to load the dice by describing a vote for a non-“pure” candidate as sacrificing principle. It is not. Pragmatism need not be unprincipled. If you demand 100 percent purity you will never find a candidate good enough. Therefore you “compromise your principles” too — or, I would say, you also recognize the need to be pragmatic on occasion. It’s just a question of where and why and to what end.
I stand for fidelity to the original understanding of the Constitution. Simple, really. To effect that in the real world we need good judges, which means we need Republican presidents and ideally a Republican Senate.
This isn’t hard.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:04 pmUltimately these debates are a dress rehearsal for when Palin runs in 2012. The only difference is there is likely nobody who would easily beat Obama so it won’t make much difference.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:07 pmToo many confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan, despite the fact that their qualifications were weak, and their
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:26 pmideology abyssmal, meanwhile the top people on the
Ticket, Obama and Biden, got there in part by cynically voting against qualified candidates like
Roberts and Alito
She tried for a month, but the garbage just piled up so high, and their still has been precious little scrutiny of Coons, in the local or even national press, deja vu all over again.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:36 pmObama done boiled the water too fast and now the frogs are jumping out!
ras (b7f440) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:48 pmToo many confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan, despite the fact that their qualifications were weak, and their
ideology abyssmal, meanwhile the top people on the
Ticket, Obama and Biden, got there in part by cynically voting against qualified candidates like
Roberts and Alito
Sotomayor and Kagan were reasonably well qualified but have horrible ideologies.
You’re right about the cynical vote by Obama. I don’t remember how Biden voted but you’re probably right about him too.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:53 pmThe only difference is there is likely nobody who would easily beat Obama so it won’t make much difference.
Comment by Patterico — 10/8/2010 @ 5:07 pm
“It’s supposed to be hard.
AD-RtR/OS! (8acc09) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:13 pmIf it was easy, anyone could do it!”
Women are incompetent. It is that simple. They rely off their looks rather than their brains. Palin, Angle, and O’donnel are killing the party because conservatives have bought into the liberal BS on gender equality. With rare exceptions, women are primarily concerned with their own personal status rather than things like facts or logic, let alone good governance.
Chris (7626bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:14 pmAs opposed to Begich, Reid/Ensign, or Biden, that’s good to know
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:17 pmDana’s gonna love you!
AD-RtR/OS! (8acc09) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:18 pmOf course I vote for “pure” candidates. How would voting for impure candidates who appoint and confirm such judges put a halt to such injudicial decisions?
tehag (a365bf) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:26 pmCleaning house has consequences… but it needs to be done.
The sooner the better.
Get it done up front and on time… suck it up and enjoy the fruit of your labor on the back side…
I’ve been an employer and sometimes I’ve have to disrupt my company and fire some key people.
It was very very hard. I had to do everything for a while until I could recruit and develop key people who could do things the right way.
In the end, I was much much better off.
Is politics so different?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:40 pmThank you, Dustin.
I thought I made it plain, but I guess I didn’t.
Note: Rant warning.
If we elect people with an (R) after their name but when push comes to shove vote with the D’s, then we haven’t won much by electing an (R).
If we try to elect someone who is “a perfect example of a (R) or conservative”, the person will never get elected because every “perfect” candidate has 10-15 supporters who agree that is “the” perfect candidate.
It’s easy for people who lean one way to point out the problems of those who lean the other way.
The reality is it is hard to “draw the line” between what compromises one can make and what compromises one won’t make. People of ill will spit like tobacco-chewing llamas no matter what, people of good will may have different opinions on where to draw the line, election by election, candidate by candidate.
I think it is very sad that who gets elected seems more of a strategy game of manipulating the public than hearing and thinking over the alternatives. We have better communication technology today than ever, and feckless reasoning powers that can’t tell the truth from BS said to your face. It should not be real hard to understand that if you keep spending money you don’t have there will be a problem; that trying to cover more people with insurance will cost more, not less, even if healthcare was what it was about; it should not be real hard to understand that there is a gross double standard when one person can be praised for being superior as a “wise Latina” where a white who said the same thing wouldn’t be elected as dogcatcher ever again.
But it does seem real hard to understand these things. Who knows how to win an election in a state that has reelected Joe Biden so many times? A person whose claim to fame is how stupid he can sound yet somehow become accepted as being a necessary fixture in the political scene. How many times does a Democrat get to plagiarize and get away with it?
I’ll make one more point. I think Gov. Palin’s record is very noteworthy. She rose up the ranks of public service, beating the power brokers and status quo; making signicant long range agreements for the benefit of her state; wildly popular in her state. She clearly was more qualified than Senator “Present” who rarely took a stand, except when it came to make sure abortions were successful even if it meant infanticide, and hid the record of his executive experience (the Chicago-area education foundation he was chair of with Bill Ayers), whose claim to fame was “running his campaign”. But I am so sick of the bickering over her that I will be very glad when the 2012 election is over and everybody can do the usual pointing fingers at each other why things didn’t go well. John Adams said our government was suitable only for a virtuous populace; well, the evidence is that virtue doesn’t make headlines and is not rewarded. As long as that is true, it won’t make difference who runs.
MD in Philly (edd1cf) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:55 pmBiden, was known for long winded orations that never
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:56 pmactually got to a question, in one instance, so much
so, that Chris Buckley before he fell completely head over heels for Obama, made a Biden manque, a
foil in his last novel.
MD represents my views well.
For one, his point that we all have different ideas of the zero-compromise option is so right. I love Chris Christie, but a lot of people are saying he’s a RINO. Palin endorsed Mccain, so many people who see immigration as issue #1 do not see her as perfect. I could go on, of course. We can all split up into thousands of little factions, selecting our candidate, and lose. But we aren’t idiots and see the big picture. They figured this out at the very moment of our nation’s conception and have been as annoyed as we are ever since.
It’s a bit unfair to compare Palin to O’donnell. Palin is much hotter. Her legs in particular are simply better. She’s better with makeup. I think she’s probably going to age much more attractively, as well. We’re talking about the difference between a 7 and a 5, which is substantial.
I like Palin and think she’s got a great record. She is sincere about reform, her values, taking stands, etc. I really do believe in her as a potential leader. Her dings and flaws are of a completely different type than O’Donnell’s. I was pretty amazed Palin even endorsed her. Palin has been through a trail of fire because she stands for something and fights for something and actually got things done.
Palin’s got a lot of problems, fair and unfair. If Mitch Daniels mentions her lack of experience, he is screwed. If consummate jerk Huck mentions her family’s eccentricities, he is toast (that one will be funny). I know a lot of primary opponents will attempt to discuss Palin’s general election challenge without being obliterated. They are so screwed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:22 pmMany claim G.H.W. Bush was impure. Yet he gave us Thomas. Yes he gave us Souter too, but Thomas is one more good justice than Dukakis would have given us.
Many claim John McCain was impure. But McCain would not have appointed Kagan and Sotomayor.
And to the guy who compared G.W.H. Bush to G.W. Bush, try comparing him to Reagan, who gave us Kennedy.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:29 pmMD represents my views fairly well also. He makes the point that absolute extremism on either side is silly.
Throwing support behind the idea of being willing to lose 10 elections in a row is extremism.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:32 pmKennedy’s about the same as a blind pig….
AD-RtR/OS! (8acc09) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:35 pmevery once and a while, he actually finds a truffle.
The same couldn’t be said of Stevens.
“…extremism…”
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
AD-RtR/OS! (8acc09) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:40 pmDrew,
That may be, but extremism that DOESN’T WORK is no virtue. And the “losing ten elections” brand will not work.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:48 pm_____________________________
Women are incompetent.
I guess the reason I focus so much on people’s ideological biases is because, as far as I’m concerned, those are the things that really do count. Everything else is so much facade and fluff.
So I will have a 1000 times more confidence in a female rightist than a male leftist. I’ll have a 1000 times more confidence in a black/Latino rightist than a white leftist. I’ll have a 1000 times more confidence in a Jewish rightist than a WASP leftist. I’ll have a 1000 times more confidence in a gay rightist (the small percentage that actually exists in the real world) than a straight leftist. Etc, etc.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:01 pmThe problem is that the GOP desperately needs bold and imaginative leadership and women are not going to provide it. Women exist to attract men and put up with children. That sounds harsh, but is entirely true. Everything of importance in this world was thought up by men. Putting women in any leadership position is a recipe for mediocrity and decline.
Chris (7626bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:22 pm#94 that was a mouthful of crap and I am a misogynist.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:26 pm“By a 50 to 42 percent margin, the public says that Obama has done a better job than Sen. John McCain would have done if he had won. And by a 10-point margin, Americans also say that Joe Biden has done a better job than Sarah Palin would have done as vice president,” adds Holland.
The rest of the link is pretty much good news.
But Palin’s got to convince people who actually think better of Joe Biden than her. She’s got to convince people who think Mccain would have done worse than this bowing whining golfer.
I roll my eyes are her Twitter page and seeing her in the Dancing with the Stars’s audience. Is that really necessary to reach that five to ten percent or so of people who are needed for victory and yet are probably not living in the real world?
——–
LOL at the sexism. Chris, you’re stupid. If you’ve never worked with a bold and imaginative woman, you’re a loser.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:27 pm______________________________________________
Putting women in any leadership position is a recipe for mediocrity and decline.
So if you were facing a choice between, say, Margaret Thatcher or Joe Biden/Al Gore/Barack Obama/John Kerry, you’d favor one of the latter? If so, you have leftist tendencies!
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:27 pmThere maybe both innate biological reasons and a few societal reasons for men being bold and imaginative more-so than women but to say what Chris said in absolute speaks poorly to Chris
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:30 pmAnd by a 10-point margin, Americans also say that Joe Biden has done a better job than Sarah Palin would have done as vice president,” adds Holland.
That’s a reflection of how much idiotic leftist bias truly exists in the public. And it’s a major reason I can easily envision America shortly becoming a sort of effete, lazy-liberalized nation, or a place not too different from various chunks of the Euro-Socialized, feel-good Western World. Call it a future in which America has a French or Greek spin to it.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:37 pmBTW, women were not allowed to file a patent until almost the 20th century.
And in much of the world, they still can’t.
I don’t have a list of female inventions and innovations, but hey, Margaret Thatcher, Kevlar, Syringes, and indeed, Sarah Palin as governor are good examples of women being effective.
I actually hold the belief that women have fewer extremely brilliant and extremely stupid examples than men do. However, that still leaves thousands or millions of extremely dumb and smart ladies. The generalization isn’t helpful when looking at any particular person, unless, like Chris, you’re too dumb to handle this evaluation.
Heavensent is right that there are some biological factors making men more likely to be bold. And yet there are similar factors giving women a propensity for helpful leadership traits (you could even sum them up as mama grizzly). We can see that some women have convictions and strength and leadership skill and some don’t. The generalizations are for lazy people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:38 pmThe problem is that the GOP desperately needs bold and imaginative leadership …
And clearly Chris, you are not the one to provide it. I hope I can get over my disappointment in you.
Mediocrity and decline? Margaret Thatcher would like you to call her.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m sure there’s a man somewhere that I must
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:38 pmwield my power overattract in order to justify my existence. Heh.Well, I am sure there are a handful of exceptions. But the point is that I don’t like the concept of challenging incompetent dems with incompetent women who only have a shallow grasp of conservative thought and screw everything up.
Chris (7626bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:43 pmChris, you’re an idiot.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:43 pmThat’s the direction we’ve been headed in, but I think America is a special place and some of us just need to be shaken awake and realize just how pathetic it would be for all of us to depend on mama government for our welfare. We’re Americans, and as hard as left tries, we want to be independent and strong and prosperous.
If it’s any consolation, the policies of the left simply are impossible to persist. Hopefully we can avoid a catastrophic failure, but the possibility of a lasting socialized USA is zero. Our character will eventually be made, either to avoid that brick wall of reality, or by slamming into it.
———-
“Well, I am sure there are a handful of exceptions”
LOL, then your entire argument just dissolved.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:48 pmPatterico, I am merely expressing a similar concern that you have been expressing, which is that republicans need to be careful of who they are putting out there.
Chris (7626bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:51 pmBut the point is that I don’t like the concept of challenging incompetent dems with incompetent women who only have a shallow grasp of conservative thought and screw everything up.
I don’t like challenging incompetent Dems with incompetent women either, Chris. What I would prefer is to see incompetent Dems challenged by competent Republicans savvy enough to know that gender is irrelevant and that the issues of the day are the economy, taxes, jobs, and as has been pointed out, making sure appointed judges are those loyal to the Constitution. Can you grasp that?
Fortunately misogyny isn’t contagious.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:57 pmYeah, our criticism is almost impossible to distinguish. Except for the 1700s era sexism of yours.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:57 pmRegarding thatcher, she got there based on actual ideas, not because of looks which seem to be the driving force behind Palin and O’donnel.
Chris (7626bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:01 pmBut Palin’s got to convince people who actually think better of Joe Biden than her.
Comment by Dustin
So true. To me Palin’s superiority is like 2+2=4, and I have little idea how I would try to convince someone of that who believes 2+2=3
I would rather vote for someone who I thought would be true to their promises, even if there were some areas of disagreement, than someone who I doubted would “stick to their guns”.
I voted for McCain in the general, but I don’t share Pat’s confidence we would have better Supreme Court nominees. I don’t trust him as a politician to do anything that won’t be to his own benefit. I would have rather voted for Guiliani, even though he is prochoice, because I would have trusted his claim that he would not push the pro-choice agenda as president, and would nominate justices like Roberts and Alito. Perhaps I’m foolish for believing that, but I think McCain’s “Gang of 14” efforts put himself in the position of a personal power and influence grab, in-line with some naive notion that to be “bipartisan” means to be better.
MD in Philly (edd1cf) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:07 pmMargaret Thatcher’s political secretary for her last three years at Number 10:
“Of course, she had favourites – Cecil Parkinson, John Moore, John Major – and she could use her femininity to get her own way. She could be kittenish, especially with leaders. It was François Mitterrand who famously said she had the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe.”
Rest easy, Chris, Mrs. Thatcher never forgot that she was put on earth to attract men…for the good of the empire.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:12 pmForgive me if I’m making a point already made, but I simply didn’t have it in me to wade through 90+ comments before posting mine.
Patterico is correct that we have bad judges handing down decisions that last long after they are dead, but we part company when it comes to his “purity” comment.
I have been waiting for 2 decades for the GOP to grow a pair and make a stand against a bad nomination for a federal judge. But the never do because we are always so focused on putting a (R) behind a Senator that RHINOs that we elect under that desire are forever uncutting such a stand whenever it get serious.
In his fit of pique, I think that Patterico losses sight that there is no benefit in electing a Republican who is all too willing to cross the aisle when push comes to shove on critical issues. In fact, just the opposite happens as it allows the Democrats to claim “bipartisan” support for the nominee.
But let us step back and look at this from another standpoint.
Suppose that RHINO A wins the primary over the PURIST B and then goes into the general election. Do you suppose that the issue of judicial nominations will play a major role? Of course not. Thus whoever is elected can vote to approve a poor judge without much fear of reprisal as the matter was never much of an issue to the voters.
Then let us suppose that PURIST B wins the primary. Now the issue of judges becomes and issue in the election and even if PURIST B is defeated but receives over 40% of the vote, then the Democrat has some concerns about voting for bad judges because now the constituancy is paying more attention to this issue Do this enough times and it then becomes harder and harder for the Democrats to even put such people in nomination as now they have to come back and defend that point.
In my opinion, every time we run a RHINO we are failing to offer the voters a clear choice and instead a choice between medium and medium rare. In the later case, issues do not get the airing that they deserve and too often the issue is ceded to the Democrats
Thresherman (4e0dda) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:14 pmI would rather vote for someone who I thought would be true to their promises, even if there were some areas of disagreement, than someone who I doubted would “stick to their guns”.
MD, what would convince you of this?
I don’t disagree but my concern all along re O’Donnell is that since she has evidenced considerable weakness of character in her private now public life (lies, misrepresentations), how can a voter possibly be confident that she will be consistent and true to her campaign promises and not be a liar in this, too?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:16 pm“Sexism” is a word invented by liberals to distract people from the fact that women are generally inferior to men in numerous ways. If sexism exists, it is due to the irrational and self-serving behavior of most women and their inability to make rational, competent judgements. The 19th amendment was a progressive era disaster, it’s repeal would greatly strengthen the conservative cause and put this country on a sounder footing.
Chris (7626bd) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:20 pmHow can a voter possibly be confident that she will be consistent and true to her campaign promises and not be a liar in this, too?
You don’t but given the set of choices …..
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:23 pmThere is some benefit. These guys don’t vote right all the time, but more often than the alternative. John Mccain voted no to Kagan, for example. It’s just not enough benefit, in your opinion to outweigh the bipartisan label on some stupid ideas. In my opinion, that’s the least of Mccain’s sins.
BTW, a lot of Republicans do fight bad nominations. Actually, they have been doing AN AMAZING JOB OF THAT LATELY. If only they had a few more Senators, I honestly believe it would have a major impact on federal judgeships.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:23 pmPatterico, you’re objection to JG’s point is self refuting. The GOP has played by your strategy for the last however many years; that it is better to win with a squishy candidate than lose. And that strategy has brought us to this point, one that you suggest is so bad that the only soltution is a continuation of the exact same policy that got us here in the first place.
You’re arguing for a magical solution, one where we can continue to vote in squishy candidates but that somehow the trend towards ever more liberalism will reverse itself.
I’m not saying JG’s principle is the solution here, playing by his rules things would only get worse even faster. But his point remains correct. Winning with unprincipled representatives achieves nothing for our cause, it only serves to muddy the waters on what conservatism is and stands for allowing the Dems to blame US for the failures of liberal policy.
Give people a real choice between failure and success and soon enough they will come around. Playing democrat lite is never going to work.
Mr Black (e49dbe) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:42 pmNonsense. Take Castle as an example, since he is the RINO-est of those targeted by the purists with only a 53 lifetime ACU rating. Bennett had an 85 and McCain an 80, so the purists obviously require 100% – my way or the highway. But Castle would vote with us more often than not – Coons will be a 90%+ liberal vote – and would vote for GOP organization. That means a Judiciary Chairman Sessions overseeing judicial nominations instead of Chairman Leahy. As Joe Biden might say, that’s a big f-ing deal.
Adjoran (ec6a4b) — 10/9/2010 @ 2:21 amThe viewpoints espoused by this Chris fellow are intriguing. Let us explore them further.
[What? Isn’t this Sock-puppet Friday?]
Jerry Brown staffer, happyfeet (e30401) — 10/9/2010 @ 3:13 amI thought this Op-Ed by Collins summed up the current climate pretty nicely.
But… be warned she hails from the tribe of RINO
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100802663_pf.html
VOR2 (64015b) — 10/9/2010 @ 5:04 amGranted, bad chief executives appoint bad jurists. But just look at the damages caused by our current federal C.E. regardless of whatever nitwit or Federalist Society member he has nominated to SCOTUS. I’ll stipulate to presidents being able to make nominations to the courts, but in this era of dangerous jurists, I’d also advocate of a looser basis of voting against a nominee than they have a Mao shrine in their front yard.
All of the above, however, pertains to the election of a president (in the federal case). The other 535 federal seats are open, and I’d rather risk losing some and maintaining a real difference between the parties than getting more Lindsey Grahams or Richard Lugars or (God forbid) Olympia Snowes. Among them, who can tell if they really support the two most basic tenents af the Republican party, limited gov’t and reduced spending..? Absolute purity tests? No, hold your nose on some. A Congress full of Scozzafavas? Hell, no.
Chris B. (104c6b) — 10/9/2010 @ 9:25 amGail Collins, jumped to the Post, what fresh hell is this. The operative force is really the tea party, it must stay intact and make the new reps
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/9/2010 @ 9:33 amresponsive; make them pay for any deviation from the goals
Again, this isn’t a big difference between the GOP and the democrats. Thomas is the only judge that seems to regularly rule that there should be limits to federal power. So the only question left is what *kind* of big government do we want.
time (aa4765) — 10/9/2010 @ 11:23 amFrom Charlie LeDuff (who is awesome)
LeDuff: Trauma ward shows a harsh reality
Charlie LeDuff / The Detroit News
Detroit Leonard Lauder, the famed chairman of Estee Lauder, consistently found that during hard economic times, his lipstick sales went up.
But there is another gauge just as reliable — if not grim — as Lauder’s famed Lipstick Indicator: the Detroit trauma ward.
Advertisement
Even as the region struggles with a dwindling population and plunging household incomes, Dr. Pat Patton, the chief of trauma surgery at Henry Ford Hospital, said he has more work than he can handle precisely because of these bleak economic times.
“A man 55 years old should not be riding a bike, much less drunk, much less in the dead of night,” said the doctor, deadpan, as he pulled out a man’s intestines foot-by-foot like sausage links trying to locate a perforation. Finding it, he called for a clamp.
“Suffering is brought on by poverty, which is brought on by whatever, and it’s a growing portion of society,” Patton went on, now calling for suction.
“But if you’re going to be a trauma surgeon, Detroit is the place to be. Few see as much knife and gun stuff as we do. Think about it like this: Miami has one level-one trauma center; San Antonio has one — the Detroit area has four.”
How desperate life has become in some quarters of this city is perhaps best seen behind the stainless steel doors and glass windows of the operating room. With few jobs, there are frustrated men who settle their financial disputes with guns — gunshot victims are up 15 percent over the past five years, Patton informs. There is even the 400-pound woman without health insurance who waits until a virus has eaten through her stomach before bothering to see a doctor.
“I want some juicy watermelon!” she screamed as Patton passed by on his nightly rounds.
The simplest definition of trauma is an injury. And of the 100,000 people who came through the emergency room door at Henry Ford last year, more than 1,500 were funneled to a trauma surgeon — eight of whom work on a rotating basis.
They range from the poor wretch hit by a car to the poor wretch whose brakes went out on his car. Trauma surgeons like Patton also will take the routine appendectomy when the action runs slow.
“My job is to fix people,” said Patton. “But there are things that happen behind these doors that make you wonder if I’m really having an effect.”
Consider his case load on a typical evening: A child was hit by a car and rushed to the trauma unit. After a battery of tests, the child was found to be well enough to go home. Instead of picking him up, the boy’s mother told the nurse to send him home on a city bus.
A man was shot through the ankle with a high-caliber rifle, the foot holding tenuously by a flap of skin. The victim owed the dope man money and the bullet was a “friendly reminder” that the bill had come due. A man who had been stabbed in the chest with a knife was being discharged to his girlfriend that evening. As it happened, the man admitted it was the girlfriend who had stabbed him in the chest with a knife.
Most times, Patton succeeds in fixing people. Sometimes, he doesn’t. Many times, he sees the same client, year after year after year.
“There’s a guy, let’s call him Greg, who was shot in the ’80s, ’90s and a couple times this decade,” said Patton. “I’ve seen him at least five times, if I’ve seen him once. He knows the place so well he could probably run a tour group.
“We patch him up and send him back out there. I suspect I take care of a lot of really hardened people and we don’t know how hardened they really are.”
Professionals worried
And it is precisely the repeat client who has health care professionals like Patton worried. Come Jan. 1, 2014, every American will be insured under the new health care law — known as the Affordable Care Act. In a nutshell, hospitals under the law will be given a predetermined payment for a specific diagnosis and treatment.
The problem is the majority of hospitals have no idea how much a course of treatment typically costs, because most have never bothered to monitor those costs. For its part, Henry Ford is very advanced in the monitoring of its treatment quality.
What is more, there is no national statistical database from which to set those standards. How much should a hospital be reimbursed for treating a gunshot victim? Or a gunshot victim’s second, third or fourth trips to the trauma ward?
Unless this gets done quickly, said Patton, who belongs to a handful of state and national committees studying the issue, then the urban hospital is in danger of collapsing given its high concentration of the country’s ill and uninsured.
“Society is already very sick and dying and I’m not sure we can catch up,” he said. “If we don’t get a handle on the costs, hospitals are going to close down. And what is going to happen if I can’t do what I do? Devastation in the urban areas is a realistic guess.”
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20101007/METRO08/10070409/1439/METRO08/LeDuff–Trauma-ward-shows-a-harsh-reality#ixzz11uRrNkNs
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 10/9/2010 @ 5:01 pm113. MD, what would convince you of this?
Comment by Dana
Well, I look at what I know of what a person has done, not what they say, and I listen to what they say about things I know something about. Obviously I can make mistakes, but I think most politicians give plenty of evidence if their routine is to lie. I liked that Guiliani didn’t try to present himself as something he wasn’t, but was willing to state that his priorities as President would not be to push a pro-choice agenda.
MD in Philly (edd1cf) — 10/9/2010 @ 6:43 pmJust wanted to say that I am eployed at a large Pharmaceutical company in Clayton NC and I endroce Barack Obama with all my heart. I would love for all my friends and colleagues to say yes for Obama in 2012!! I LOVE YOU OBAMA
Diane Pearce Loves Obama (b7bdb8) — 3/24/2011 @ 6:52 amGreat, moron spam.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/24/2011 @ 7:09 amGreat, moron spam
And about as well targeted as most spam, too.
Just because of this I will never endroce Obama. Of course first I have to how to endroce Obama.
kishnevi (437df2) — 3/24/2011 @ 7:31 amhave to how to
have to figure out how to
kishnevi (437df2) — 3/24/2011 @ 7:32 amOf course this doesn’t suprise me when the economy collapses the 52% people of who voted for him needs to pay for their useful idiocy.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/24/2011 @ 7:34 am