Patterico's Pontifications

this one is a hugely more better deal than the gang of 6 twaddle

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/20/2011 @ 7:58 am

For once, I am hoping Harry Reid has his way. Let him kill this and then the GOP can find its spine as it will be known the Dems refused a compromise.

Ed from SFV (7d7851) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:04 am

If this passes this Senate, Barack O’Bluffer might have to veto it from Martha’s Vineyard where he will be leading on vacation.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:09 am

Interesting to see where some of the “moderate” Dems will sit on this.

No question Obama vetos, praying for enough “sky is falling” cover from MSM. Not sure it will be enough.

Don’t love the plan, but it’s the next step on the path.

the bhead (a31060) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:20 am

Senator Toomey is quoted in favour of this, and Ryan is for it too, so I have to think it’s good.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:28 am

The House GOP backed the Ryan budget. Patterico called the Ryan budget “our last hope for a successful country.” Sadly, I tend to agree. However, the Ryan budget proposes adding $5-6 trillion to the national debt. I’ve taken my shots at the Congressional GOP, and have been screeding on the debt for some time. But I’ll take the position that backing the Ryan budget means at least a grudging willingness to take on more debt in the next decade.

Karl (1c1b70) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:29 am

the Ryan budget is a very good start

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:33 am

Exactly. It’s a start, not a goal. You can’t quit cold turkey.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:54 am

If the politicians don’t get their stuff in one sock pretty soon, we may have no choice but to “quit cold turkey”.

Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:59 am

Does anyone else really want Obama to veto this, just for the fun of watching the automatic cuts strike?

Dianna (5bc608) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:10 am

The one good thing about Cut, Cap and Balance is tat the debt ceiling does not get raised until after the Balanced Budget Amendment passes both chambers and gets sent to the states.

The best deal would be no deal at all, but at least with this we get the BBA.

Anon Y. Mous (7b61f4) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:17 am

These gangs are a menace.

JD (97473a) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:26 am

Totally sweet.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:39 am

Despite my prior comment, I must note that Steven Dennis and James Pethokoukis are both saying S&P is likely to downgrade US Treasuries with less than a legit $4T deal. And a downgrade would have ripple effects throught the economy. CCB claims to save $5.8T, but the enforcement is sufficiently iffy that it might not avoid a downgrade, even if it could become law (which the Dems won’t let happen).

Karl (f07e38) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:41 am

A Balanced Budget Amendment might be a case of “be careful what you wish for”. It could very well become a $5 trillion budget with taxes raised in a vain attempt to balance.

Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:44 am

Patterico,

Hasn’t it been your advice that anyone with an (R) and has the highest chance of winning should be supported?

How about, instead, primary selection of those with principles, backbone and willingness to advocate our positions? Even if they have a tougher preliminary poll position?

Sure, we’ll lose a few, but those we have will actually fight for something and might occasionally win.

Winning elections is necessary but insufficient.

Over time, the voters need to select one of: a fighter for fiscal sanity; a mushy “present”; or a statist — not (R) or (D).

Over time, the selections will matter (be enacted) instead of this current mess of “split the baby in half” decision-making.

We’ve gotten a lot of freshman in there holding position – they need reinforcements.

John Lynch (8f4b4f) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:45 am

If the T-Bills are downgrades, that amounts to a tremendous loss of money. Democrats and Republicans should be willing to come together and avoid it. It means less revenue for Obama care, or less revenue for paying off the debt.

It’s like a couple arguing about how much they should spend, but agreeing to abide by their cardholder agreement with AMEX. Instead, it seems like the democrats really won’t let any deal happen, and the ultimate problem for them is not the financial impact, but simply how the story is spun politically.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:46 am

when I said “If the T-Bills are downgrades,” I meant “downgraded.”

How about, instead, primary selection of those with principles, backbone and willingness to advocate our positions?

Sure, we need Republicans who will stand firm on principles.

And when that isn’t possible, we need the least bad, which often is a moderate Republican.

And when that isn’t possible, we need the least bad, which very rarely these days is a moderate democrat.

The answer is not a one-size fits all approach to every single election. And while you’re right that ideology matters, ethics also matter. If I have to pick between an ethical moderate and a corrupt person whose claims are exactly what I want to hear, usually I will pick the moderate.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:51 am

I’ve mentioned this before, and will again:
There has been a great deal of speculation that Bill Gross/PIMCO began unloading Treasuries and talking down the prospects of the U.S. as a possible “short play” anticipating the upcoming downgrade from S&P/Moody’s.

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:51 am

Well, maybe not “great”, but “some”.

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:52 am

Dustin,

You put up a false choice regarding my position.

As I stated: “principled”. Kind of excludes corrupt in my thinking.

John Lynch (8f4b4f) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:57 am

AD – The job of Gross is to make money for his own investors, not others. He is allowed to make comments that serve those interests.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:58 am

Hasn’t it been your advice that anyone with an (R) and has the highest chance of winning should be supported?

That misstates Patterico’s position. He has said that the most conservative candidate who can win should be supported. Not quite the same thing.

Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:02 am

Comment by daleyrocks — 7/20/2011 @ 9:58 am

Yes, I realize that; but that doesn’t excuse the deification of his words by many in the financial, and political, community.
There seems to be too much of that “willing suspension of disbelief” that we were warned about.

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:05 am

Cut spending and do nothing but cut spending.

Charlie Davis (cbdc2b) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:05 am

Amen!

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:09 am

As I stated: “principled”. Kind of excludes corrupt in my thinking.

Comment by John Lynch — 7/20/2011 @ 9:57 am

Fair enough. I think you have a point.

But then, we may disagree about who is principled from time to time. I recall one recent election showed someone who expressed very conservative views, but was a dishonest weasel. They were running in a blue state against someone who was a very moderate Republican, but the only republican who ever won statewide elections in that state in many, many years, and the only conceivable shot of taking this valuable election.

One side refused to consider the ethics problems of the ‘principled’ candidate. They were too busy focusing on the defects in the moderate.

What do you do when there are two candidates, and they both have a problem? One is unethical, the other doesn’t share all your conservative principles.

I don’t really think I’m presenting you with a false choice at all! This is a legitimate problem that recently arose.

It was easy for me to chose the only one with a chance of winning the general election, but still, I don’t think you can dismiss this problem so quickly.

Chuck helpfully provides what is Patterico’s position to the best of my recollection. Nominate the most conservative politician who can win. We saw in 2010 that there are limits yet to what we can get through a general election. Those saying we should just have faith and go for broke are making a fundamental mistake. Every single Senate seat is too valuable.

But anyway, there are plenty of Republicans in safe districts who need to be primaried and replaced. What I would suggest is focus on purifying the red state’s representation before you focus on the blue states, where the problem becomes very complicated, where we can only guess as to who is the most conservative who can win.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:10 am

We should start with any Senators that join a gang.

JD (97473a) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:14 am

I guess a simpler way to say all that is that you have to choose from the candidates who are running.

saying that’s a false choice is not true. Sometimes you pick between Hayworth and Mccain or O’Donnell and Castle.

If you’re lucky, you have a choice between Miller and Murkowski. But even then, with a great candidate, it’s tough to win sometimes.

It’s not like I can custom order the candidate who is just as conservative as a district can possibly tolerate, with pure ethics. God I wish I could do that.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:15 am

We should start with any Senators that join a gang.

Phone call for Deng Xiaoping; Deng, you have a telephone call!

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:18 am

We should start with any Senators that join a gang.

Comment by JD — 7/20/2011 @ 10:14 am

Texas is where I’d start, frankly. I wish we had been able to replace Mccain (we needed a better opponent), though, and he’s very into these gangs.

It’s amazing how fundamental things like the finances of a failing government don’t get an up or down vote. They should put each of these proposals to an up or down vote, out of respect for the voters knowing where their representative stands. These gangs hijack the issue.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:18 am

If Obama lets the government default, he will ultimately be doing the country a favor. The market will demand a much higher interest rate which will result in serious budget cuts since the otherwise bond issues will be unaffordable. SO if he caves to republicans the country wins. If he stiffs the creditors painful as it will be, the country wins in the long run.

cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:20 am

Am I paranoid to suspect Google’s logo, comprised of peas, is a showing of support for Obama’s recent claim we need to eat our peas?

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:40 am

Your paranoia has been suspected for some time.
And Yes!, you do need to eat your peas!

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:42 am

Dustin, Chuck, and perhaps et al;

William Buckley’s “most conservative that can win” point is of course the gold standard.

The point I am making is that prior to the election, we do not know who can win and must make judgment calls.

My position is to make the contrasts apparent. Do not concede before the fight that so and so cannot win because this is a moderate district. Primary the district! Fight the fight. If not, then the voters in that district do not have a meaningful choice. The voters then must select – again in the primary – between status quo or mushy middle. This does not serve our cause. Sure we may end up losing a few, but we will have gotten our position argued.

If we do not even ask for the order – we will not get it. We end up with decision-making such as is now seen. “Courage. Vision. Your GOP” states patterico in the post. Where does this come from? From precisely the sort of unwillingness to put up the most conservative candidates in each and every place.

I am not saying to not focus on winning, and that we may get some less than perfect candidates, but how do we pre-judge the “who can win” part? As the most solid candidate in terms of polls? Or, the slightly less solidly polling candidate that will argue our position?

I for one am willing to support a slight underdog (in terms of preliminary polls) over a solid win but unprincipled candidate – if the slight underdog is vocally arguing the real choice.

We might win. And if so we win on both ways – our candidate, and our position. Winning our candidate but not our position is quite unsatisfactory. Even if we lose, but argued the case – it puts backbone in others who might worry about being primaried – so we may actually have more votes in Congress on our issues through the loss at general election of one particular conservative candidate who defeated a less conservative candidate in primary.

In earlier, last year, discussions here on this point it seemed to me that patterico’s position was early on to the mushy candidate. He may have been right, but this is precisely what you get.

John Lynch (8f4b4f) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:52 am

Remember Scott Brown’s impossible win in Massachusetts and don’t let so-called experts in MFMSM, or GOP establishment insiders exclude conservative candidates from the field before the votes are counted. A difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.

ropelight (b6290d) — 7/20/2011 @ 11:00 am

The point I am making is that prior to the election, we do not know who can win and must make judgment calls.

You’re quite right.

It’s not going to get any easier. While it’s hardest in purple and blue states, I do think it’s not nearly so tough in red states.

Even if we lose, but argued the case – it puts backbone in others who might worry about being primaried

This is a very good point too.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 11:13 am

I get the point but it’s still odd to see Californians criticizing the GOP for not being fiscally responsible enough.

DRJ (fdd243) — 7/20/2011 @ 11:34 am

DRJ – the cognitive dissonance should make their heads assplode 😉

JD (29e1cd) — 7/20/2011 @ 11:37 am

“Yes, I realize that; but that doesn’t excuse the deification of his words by many in the financial, and political, community.”

AD – People deify at their own peril. See Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein. Also Warren Buffet and how the left deifies his pronouncements on taxes – how he pays lower rates than his secretary. That’s great until you unpack his statement and figure out how he is completely misleading everybody.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/20/2011 @ 11:44 am

33.Am I paranoid to suspect Google’s logo, comprised of peas, is a showing of support for Obama’s recent claim we need to eat our peas

Fortunately, this is not a political statement on Google’s part. Today is anniversary of the birth of Gregor Mendel, pioneer in genetics, who based his observations on peas he grew in his monastery.

Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/20/2011 @ 12:19 pm

oh. Thanks Chuck.

But what if he was Gergor was born on that day just because of a grand conspiracy to help Google subtly support the Obama agenda?

What if Leap Year is a conspiracy just to make sure his birthday happens to line up with Obama’s talking points!

Kenya LIHOP Peas Area 51 Paul is the Walrus!

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 12:28 pm

Obama is allowing our jobs to be shipped overseas with his stifling debt.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/20/2011 @ 1:23 pm

Memo to Harry Reid from the Gang of 234.

Heh.

DRJ (fdd243) — 7/20/2011 @ 1:42 pm

Short mid-afternoon palate cleanser:

Scoldy MSNBC hack Contessa to Congressman–“Do you have a degree in economics?”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/20/msnbc_to_gop_congressman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

elissa (7f84b5) — 7/20/2011 @ 1:51 pm

“Highest honors.” That’s great, elissa.

DRJ (fdd243) — 7/20/2011 @ 1:54 pm

elissa,

I saw that earlier and read somewhere that Brewer evidences her lack of journalistic skills and experience by asking a ‘gotcha’ without knowing the answer ahead of time.

Not only does Brooks have an economics degree, he also has degrees in political science and law. Heh.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/20/2011 @ 1:56 pm

Funny that Brewer acted like that question was relevant until she got the answer to it.

She didn’t say ‘well apparently you know what you’re talking about’. But if the answer had been no, I suspect she would have made a strong and harsh conclusion.

And why is MSNBC asking people for their opinion if they intend to shoot that opinion down as coming from a non-expert? They had him on their program for a reason, I assume. Was it to ambush him?

What a fundamentally unserious way of discussing a serious problem.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 2:02 pm

And yet if we stop Nuclear Power we will suffer from california like brownouts.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/20/2011 @ 2:08 pm

@ Dustin,

What a fundamentally unserious way of discussing a serious problem.

But that’s the point: it was in no way ever intended from the get-go to be a serious discussion about a serious problem.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/20/2011 @ 2:10 pm

Only a conjecture on my part of course, but I am betting that she heard his southern accent and just automatically made some assumptions based on accepted (but faulty) east coast liberal narrative. Yes, Dana, I agree. She was not ever looking for information or to have a discussion. Contessa conducted the interview based on stereotypes and hoping only to embarrass and expose the rube.

elissa (7f84b5) — 7/20/2011 @ 2:21 pm

I’m a non-practicing conservative jew[Political and otherwise]

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/20/2011 @ 2:27 pm

Comment by DRJ — 7/20/2011 @ 1:42 pm

That’s not a gang, that’s a lynch-mob; and Harry deserves to be the guest-of-honor.

AD-RtR/OS! (a64e11) — 7/20/2011 @ 3:01 pm

Gregor Mendel was an augustinian friar also.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/20/2011 @ 4:24 pm

Hasn’t it been your advice that anyone with an (R) and has the highest chance of winning should be supported?

Nope.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 5:24 pm

_________________________________________

William Buckley’s “most conservative that can win” point is of course the gold standard.

If certain people can’t understand or accept that concept, I recommend they keep track of their spouses, siblings, parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends, neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances and the folks they’ve encountered randomly at parties or gatherings who have liberal biases, squishy biases, centrist biases, or conservative biases.

The only people who I can understand taking a purist approach to politics and elections would be those who live in an echo-chamber environment, where almost everyone they talk to and socialize with is of like mind. IOW, I can understand a leftist throwing caution to the wind if he or she hangs out in, say, a place like San Francisco or works in an industry like the media. Or I can understand a rightist throwing caution to the wind if he or she hangs out in, say, Utah or is involved in things like the Rotary Club.

For people between those two scenarios, I can’t figure them out when they take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to the politicians they favor or the outcome they demand from the electorate.

Mark (411533) — 7/20/2011 @ 6:06 pm

Comment by Mark — 7/20/2011 @ 6:06 pm

This from someone who regularly calls people “squish” (including me at one time) for not being conservative enough.

Cognitive dissonance: It’s not just for progressives.

Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/20/2011 @ 6:28 pm

______________________________________________

This from someone who regularly calls people “squish” (including me at one time) for not being conservative enough.

But, Stashiu3, there’s a difference between my POV and personal preferences and the tactics that I’m forced to accept. Again, I have no choice but to deal with that because of the varying opinions of people all around me, and throughout society in general.

Believe me, I’d love to take everything I favor for granted, and I’d be thrilled if the people and ideas I prefer were automatically a shoo-in. But there is a lot of liberal sentiment floating around out there — more of that in this age of do-gooder sophistication and mindless self-entitlement than ever before — and I’m often reminded that common sense is anything but common.

Mark (411533) — 7/20/2011 @ 6:59 pm

But, Stashiu3, there’s a difference between my POV and personal preferences and the tactics that I’m forced to accept.
Comment by Mark — 7/20/2011 @ 6:59 pm

Fair enough… but you might give others benefit of the doubt that they may be making the same tradeoff. Assuming they’re a “squish” doesn’t do that. Nuance isn’t always a dirty word.

🙂

Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/20/2011 @ 7:27 pm

“This from someone who regularly calls people “squish” (including me at one time) for not being conservative enough.”

Stashiu3 – I fired off an email to my squishy Senator Kirk first thing this morning applauding the actions of the House, decrying the lack of seriousness of the Democrats and urging him to stand firm and support the CCB bill rather than fold and go for the Gang of 6 bill or McConnell compromise.

I have no problem calling Kirk a squish, but he was the only alternative to Obama’s crooked mob banker.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/20/2011 @ 7:45 pm

daleyrocks,

There are squishes, no doubt.

Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:04 pm

For people between those two scenarios, I can’t figure them out when they take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to the politicians they favor or the outcome they demand from the electorate.

As someone who admittedly lives in an echo chamber, isn’t compromise what got us where we are now?

DRJ (fdd243) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:21 pm

you can’t spell compromise without c-o-m-m-i-e plus a few other letters sprinkled in

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:30 pm

I work here is done

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:33 pm

I get the point but it’s still odd to see Californians criticizing the GOP for not being fiscally responsible enough.

Am I one of the “Californians” you’re talking about?

Are you trying to hurt my feelings? 🙂

I like to think of myself as a Texan who just happens to live in California. My mom is here for a couple of weeks and is happy to be out of the heat. I talk to my sisters and they complain about nothing BUT the heat. Life is a trade-off, but calling me a “Californianian”? Oh, that hurts!

🙂

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:36 pm

I work here is done

That never gets old. You’d think it would. But it just never does.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:36 pm

Man, I’m dying to write about that ridiculous Ninth Circus decision overturning the conviction for threatening to assassinate Barack Obama.

Or, I’m sorry, for not threatening Barack Obama. As the ivory tower judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski tell us.

I should add that I was at Judge Kozinski’s house on July 4, and he was a marvelously gracious host and I really like the guy. And I know he is over-the-top in favor of free speech. But I think this decision is ridiculous, and I would happily say so to Judge Kozinski’s face (or the face of Judge Reinhardt, who was also present at that wonderful barbecue).

So why am I not writing about it? That reminds me: I have to get back to work!

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:40 pm

Maybe I can pop something up by tomorrow morning. But I have to be at work at 7:30 a.m. to interview witnesses, and bedtime is still a couple of hours away, so . . . maybe not.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:42 pm

Patterico – I’m sure Cyrus would love a post about a July 4 barbecue at the Kozinski’s.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:50 pm

____________________________________________

isn’t compromise what got us where we are now?

I think the following assessment, which has wended it way through various websites over the past 2 years, correctly states what pretty much is at the core of the matter.

During the late evening of November 4, 2008, I recall 2 of 3 conservative or libertarian hosts on a KABC talkradio show saying they had voted for Obama. Before election day, my brother, who generally is of the right, ended up saying he was glad (and not in a sarcastic way, I might add) that Obama likely would end up in the White House.

For such people, and most definitely for the high percentage of registered Democrats who, based on current polling, continue to kiss the butt of the guy currently in the Oval Office, I hereby post the following…

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

^ Or to put it another way, a large number of Americans apparently believe that if it’s good enough for Greece/Mexico/France/Venezuela/Spain, it’s good enough for us.

Mark (411533) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:51 pm

Politics is greyscale, and different sectors of the nation use different scales.

1. Hardline Socialist
2. Left of center
3. Center-left
4. Center
5. Center-right
6. Right of center
7. Hardline Conservative

A California 6 is a fly-over 3.5.
I’m a fly-over 7.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:55 pm

Yes sometimes Kozinski is too clever by half, and the fact that Reinhardt signed on, is a clear sign
‘the’re crossing the streams on this one’

As for the Gang of Six, if the AP is right, they really need gang signs and bandannas, every conceivable deduction, health care, homestead, charitable, et al, is on the chopping bloc,

ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:55 pm

ian,

I believe Reinhardt wrote it, and Kozinski is the one who signed on.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 8:59 pm

Patterico – I’m sure Cyrus would love a post about a July 4 barbecue at the Kozinski’s.

It was a beautiful evening and the second July 4 we spent there. (Last year we were out of town, as I recall.) We walked down to the beach and saw a six-legged starfish! Six legs! Did you ever see such a thing?

Kozinski has lost a lot of weight. His explanation? “No carbs.”

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:01 pm

I know something else that helps people lose weight. A very special system that, back in the day, was called GRID. But malaria works, too.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:03 pm

I didn’t speak to Reinhardt. I came very close to him. There are so many things I am tempted to say (as a joke, based on the decision), but just because Reinhardt thinks certain speech falls on one side of the line doesn’t mean that I agree.

So there will be absolutely no jokes about how I was close enough to [insert speech that is, in my opinion, not constitutionally protected, Judge Reinhardt’s opinion notwithstanding]. Don’t even ask me to tell any.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:03 pm

But yes: I was close enough to shake his hand, had I been so inclined.

I was not.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:04 pm

I respect Kosinski, that’s why ‘Cyrus the Virus’s tirade, was most disturbing, I think that decision was one step too far.

ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:06 pm

So there will be absolutely no jokes about how I was close enough to [insert speech that is, in my opinion, not constitutionally protected, Judge Reinhardt’s opinion notwithstanding].

That reminds me. When we were kids, we used to take rolls of paper caps out to the street (we lived on a dead-end street) and use rocks to pop the caps. It was a blast.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:07 pm

By the way, Judge Kozinski’s wife is the greatest. As those who frequented this blog during the “scandal” were no doubt aware.

His kids are pretty cool too.

It’s still a terrible decision.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:21 pm

OMG, just read Reinhardt’s introduction. It’s like reading an article on Slate.com maybe, or something from The New Republic.

I’ve never seen anything less appropriate in an appellate opinion. Shameful!

Beldar (8565ac) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:31 pm

“he will have a 50 cal in the head soon”

That’s the threat we’re talking about?

That would scare me.

And the government had to spend a lot of manpower dealing with following up on it. 60 days in a halfway house is actually a pretty good resolution, too. Doesn’t ruin the guy’s life, but probably reforms him.

Maybe Patterico should post a link to the decision and just ask us to discuss it.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:37 pm

To be more clear:

Having now skimmed both the majority opinion and dissent, I think I’d probably have voted to reverse the conviction too.

My objection is not to the result, but to the preachy, moralistic, and highly political tone that Judge Reinhardt’s opinion displays. It’s not his job, nor the Ninth Circuit’s, to pass moral judgments about political candidates or the citizens who support or oppose them. Reinhardt turns this reversal into an apologia to his liberal friends, and that’s smarmy and unjudicious as hell.

Beldar (8565ac) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:44 pm

And here’s the slip opinion, and here’s Volohk’s relatively noncommittal post about it.

Beldar (8565ac) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:45 pm

Let me put it this way: It looks like the only part Judge Reinhardt might have left on the editing-room floor was the part about how this was really all Dick Cheney’s fault.

Beldar (8565ac) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:46 pm

Beldar, thanks for the Volokh link.

I’m a bit in awe of our country. The BCRA can regulate political speech, at least to some extent. I know that’s diminished, but there stands a chance I could get in legal trouble for political speech if I really flout some aspects of it.

But that 50 cal and other comments were not to

“know-ingly and willfully threaten[ ] to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon . . . a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President,”

because they were political expression?

we must find sufficient evidence that the speech at issue constitutes a “true threat,” as defined in Black.

Why, damn it? The first amendment that doesn’t cover political speech covers political threats?

How bizarre.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/20/2011 @ 9:59 pm

🙄

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:12 pm

Patterico, I take it that you think Bagdasarian intended his readers to believe that he was actually going to travel to wherever Senator Obama was and try to kill him, and that a reasonable reader would have so understood him? Or do you think that Brandenburg, Watts and Black were all wrongly decided, and it doesn’t take a true threat to escape first amendment protection?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:26 pm

I have posted on this. Let’s take the discussion to the appropriate thread.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:37 pm

I’d love to hear Beldar elaborate on justifying this decision at the appropriate thread.

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:37 pm

Dustin, the Supreme Court majority that upheld BCRA did so by pretending to believe in a distinction between actually speaking oneself and paying so someone else can speak. Political speech is definitely protected, and so are all expressions of opinion, including “the Jews are our misfortune and should be wiped out”, “it was a mistake to free the blacks”, and “somebody ought to put a 50-cal in the president’s head”. There can be no question at all that these are fully protected statements of opinion. One may advocate these positions, one may argue for them, one may write books and deliver lectures for them. All one may not do is whip up a mob and send them out to immediately act on these opinions.

Under Watts it’s also explicitly OK to say “if X were to happen, I would kill the President”. That’s not a threat, because X hasn’t happened and might never happen. This is especially so if the context indicates that I might not be serious.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/20/2011 @ 10:37 pm

The problem with the logic of “most conservative who can win” is that the pathology to “get along” translates in the most liberal of them all. Ergo, McCain.

We used to call it “Group Think.”

Sponge Bob Torquemada (786e37) — 7/21/2011 @ 7:22 am

“The problem with the logic of “most conservative who can win” is that the pathology to “get along” translates in the most liberal of them all. Ergo, McCain.”

Rubbish. He had the leading delegate count after the primaries and at the Convention.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/21/2011 @ 8:04 am

7/20/2011

GOP Passes “Cut, Cap, and Balance” Act

93 Responses to “GOP Passes “Cut, Cap, and Balance” Act”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out