Patterico's Pontifications


The Patterico Music Project: “In Your Mind” Recorded by Jamie Woolford

Filed under: General,Music,Music by Patterico — Patterico @ 1:01 am

It’s time for Song #7 in the Patterico Music Project. The concept is simple: my favorite musical artists record cover versions of songs I wrote 25 years ago. You’ve never heard this one before. It’s another cover by Jamie Woolford. I told you all about Jamie here, in my post announcing his cover of “Alien Song.” Jamie has transformed this song into something I can’t stop listening to. Get ready to experience some major power pop that should have you bouncing around the room — assuming you have the volume turned up loud enough.

Press play now — and enjoy.

Tomorrow I’ll give you the lyrics. And on Thursday you can hear my original version.

Jamie has done two others. Stay tuned!

P.S. Those looking for previous entries in the series can find them here:

All can be accessed at my SoundCloud page at

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Trump Tweets Out Yet Another Attack On The Freedom Caucus; Pledges To Deal With Democrats

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:30 pm

I have argued that the members of the Freedom Caucus who opposed TrumpCare aka the AHCA are heroes. Donald Trump apparently disagrees:

What he calls “the jaws of victory” I call “the jaws of ObamaCare lite.” For Trump, the solution, apparently, is to negotiate with Democrats:

Nothing says “good policy” like a deal that makes Democrats happy!

Here’s the problem with Trump’s latest tantrum: the folks in the Freedom Caucus were not the only people who opposed this dog of a bill. They’re just the ones Paul Ryan wanted to blame. Leon Wolf has an indispensable piece about this, and I’ll just tease you with a few paragraphs:

Ryan would have you believe that the Freedom Caucus was solely responsible for the scuttling of his deeply unpopular pet project to “repeal” Obamacare. The media, which are largely ignorant of the internal dynamics of the House GOP caucus because they are largely staffed by ex-Democrat Hill staffers, have been happy to carry Ryan’s water in this regard — either because they, too, dislike the Freedom Caucus or because they are too lazy to dig even an inch below the surface and learn the truth.

Of course, the Freedom Caucus might well wish to claim the AHCA’s defeat as a net positive since Americans opposed its passage by a whopping margin of 56 percent. However, regardless of the particulars of the act, Ryan now has a convenient scapegoat he can blame for the party’s failure to pass a bill that at least nominally replaced Obamacare — both with Chamber of Commerce-types who supported AHCA-style reform and, more significantly, with President Donald Trump (who looks increasingly likely to enter the fray in Republican House primaries in 2018). And with the latter target, there is evidence that his campaign is working, since Trump has begun grousing aloud about Freedom Caucus members on his Twitter account.

The facts, however, tell a very different story. Even though liberals and moderates in the House GOP caucus were quieter during the AHCA debate, they were no less opposed to the bill. The only difference is that Ryan opted not to place them in a difficult position — an opportunity Freedom Caucus members were not afforded.

All emphasis in the original. Read it all.

There’s a path to repealing ObamaCare that makes sense. That path is not making “great deals” with Democrats out of pique. The correct path is Ted Cruz’s plan. That path is the free market.

Pass it and dare the chucklehead Trump to veto it.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

What Should Be the Next Step on Repealing ObamaCare? Ted Cruz Has the Answer

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:00 am

So. What comes next on repealing ObamaCare?

The TrumpCare bill (AHCA) was a disaster. It was not a vote to repeal ObamaCare, but rather a vote to keep it, and tweak it. That’s not what Republicans promised to do, and it’s not good enough. We should not mourn its passing, but celebrate it. The defeat of the bill was glorious, and the members of the Freedom Caucus who opposed it are heroes.

The reason fans of the free market are angry is not because TrumpCare failed — but because of the statements by Paul Ryan and Donald Trump that they are done with trying to repeal ObamaCare. Those statements are wrong and dangerous. As Ted Cruz once said:

First principle: Honor our promise. When you spend six years promising, “If only we get elected, we’ll repeal Obamacare,” you cannot renege on that promise. Failure is not an option. Breaking our word would be catastrophe. The voters would, quite rightly, never again trust Republicans to deliver on anything.


The response to the defeat of TrumpCare is not to pick up the ball and go home. It must be to draft a bill that actually does what Republicans promised, and drives down costs through market-based mechanisms.

What should such a bill look like? As it turns out, Ted Cruz had a proposal that outlined an answer to that question. I blogged that op-ed before, but with the defeat of the AHCA, Cruz’s op-ed has renewed relevance, as a blueprint that could bring Republicans together and actually repeal ObamaCare. I think it’s worth giving his proposal another detailed look.

First, Cruz suggests something I have been pushing throughout this process: starting with the 2015 repeal bill.

First, begin with the 2015 repeal language. . . . Virtually every Republican in Congress voted for that language, and the parliamentarian has already ruled it as permissible. We should begin with that previously approved repeal language as the baseline.

Bingo. The recent debate over AHCA has shown that the previous votes to repeal ObamaCare may have been fraudulent show votes. But here’s the thing: if you’re a moderate, it’s easier to justify a vote against AHCA than it would be to justify changing your vote on the exact same language you voted for before.

A duplicate of the 2015 bill, we learned yesterday from Andrea Ruth, exists — today, in this Congress. It is languishing in committee. It needs to be pushed to the floor and voted on.

But the 2015 bill is not enough. So Cruz next focuses on areas that should provide broad consensus for Republicans. They include excellent ideas like “allow[ing] consumers to purchase insurance across state lines,” ensuring the ability to buy “low-cost catastrophic insurance on a nationwide market,” and the use of health savings accounts. These would all have the effect of increasing competition and lowering costs. But it’s what Cruz says next that I consider critical:

Third, we should change the tax laws to make health insurance portable, so that if you lose you[r] job you don’t lose your health insurance. You don’t lose your car insurance or life insurance or house insurance if you lose your job; you shouldn’t lose your health insurance either. And that would go a long way to[wards] addressing the problem of pre-existing conditions, since much of that problem stems from people losing their jobs and then not being able to get new coverage on the individual market.

Fourth, we should protect continuous coverage. If you have coverage, and you get sick or injured, your health insurance company shouldn’t be able to cancel your policy or jack up your premiums. That’s the whole point of health insurance.

These suggestions by Cruz are very important, and I want to discuss them at some length. Here’s where it gets tough, because there’s a bitter pill that, in my view, Americans have to swallow: we have to get rid of the ObamaCare provision that requires companies to insure pre-existing conditions. Now I can already hear a bunch of people yelling: hold up there hoss, that’s never going to work and people don’t want that. Do me a favor: hear me out. There’s a way to address the concerns people have about insurance companies’ refusal to insure against pre-existing conditions without this mandate. The answer lies in Cruz’s suggestions in his op-ed, which contains terms that may seem abstract to some people, such as “guaranteed renewal” and “equal tax treatment for individual plans” and “portability.” But if you stick with me for a moment, I’ll explain the reality behind these abstract terms, and how they can help solve the problem.

First, let me say that I understand why people wanted the provision requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions. Very simply: the situation before ObamaCare was untenable for a lot of people, and the recession made it worse. Here’s the scenario: you’ve been carrying health insurance for years through your job — but then the recession hits and you are laid off. You’ve been responsible all these years, but in the meantime you’ve developed a serious health condition. Because insurance is tied to work, you’re now thrown into the individual market, which is entirely dysfunctional and which may well reject you because of your “pre-existing” condition.

This is an entirely unacceptable state of affairs. It’s unfair, and Americans should not have to stand for it. And it seems to many people as though the easy answer is to tell insurance companies: hey, you have to cover these conditions! But here’s the problem: that leads you inextricably down the ObamaCare path, because if you mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions, most people just won’t buy health insurance until they develop those conditions. That’s clearly an unworkable situation for insurance companies, because they can’t make money by selling only policies that are going to lose them a lot of money. And that’s what led us to this Rube Goldberg contraption of ObamaCare, where the government decided to pad the insurance companies’ bottom line by forcing healthy people to buy insurance, and even forcing them to buy coverage for things they didn’t want and would never want (like maternity care for a single male).

So the pre-existing conditions requirement is not some perk that we can keep while ditching the rest of ObamaCare.

So what else can be done? Well, there’s always single-payer. If you liked socialism and think it worked well for the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela, you’ll love socialism in health care! The rosy Big Media descriptions of socialized health care in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere often leave out the plight of people who die waiting for their operations, and are simply neglected by a system that has no real incentive to improve their health. There’s also a corrosive effect of nationalized health care on your ability to criticize the government. If you think politicians making decisions about your life is a good thing now, just wait until they have power over whether you live or die. Dissent is going to be a little more difficult then, isn’t it?

Luckily, the free market has another way. It’s called guaranteed renewability — the same concept as the “continuous coverage” described by Cruz in his op-ed. Guaranteed renewability is described in this excellent paper from the Mercatus Center:

[G]uaranteed-renewable insurance permits consumers to renew their coverage at the same premium, regardless of whether they have developed any new chronic health conditions since obtaining the insurance.

If you really want to go deep into the policy analysis, I recommend reading that paper. But the essence of the idea is that, like term life insurance, annual premiums are lower if you buy in when you’re young and healthy. This way, the money that insurance companies need to cover people who have developed serious health conditions is provided voluntarily by younger people who want to buy into guaranteed renewal coverage early, rather than by a government-ordered mandate enforced by penalties (or if you prefer, Justice Roberts, by “taxes”) imposed on people who don’t comply.

Why didn’t this happen pre-ObamaCare? Actually, it did — but it was unworkable for a lot of people who lost their jobs, because insurance was not truly portable. The Mercatus Center paper says that “most individual market plans were indeed sold with this guaranteed-renewable provision” — but if you lost your job, you’d end up having to convert from a health plan sponsored by the employer to an individual health plan. This would subject you to rejection for a pre-existing condition — the very same unacceptable racket described above. The HIPAA law in 1996 attempted to address the issue of portability, but did not really fix the problem.

A large part of the reason health insurance is not fully portable is the differential tax treatment between employer-sponsored and individual plans. Insurance premiums paid by employers are not taxed, while premiums paid by individuals are.

How could we even out the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individual plans? We could follow the lead of most economists and rescind the tax exemption for employer-sponsored plans, but that would be very unpopular. The Mercatus Center instead suggests “modification of the tax code to extend the tax break for health insurance beyond the employment-based market into the individual market.” In other words, give the tax exemption to everyone. This would still amount to a subsidy by the federal government — but employees already enjoy this subsidy, and the unequal treatment of individual plans is not equitable and distorts the market. The key is treating both types of plans equally under the tax code.

Of course, we can’t just snap our fingers and achieve all this overnight. As the Mercatus Center paper acknowledges, “a transition to this market-oriented arrangement would likely have to be coupled with high-risk-pool coverage for those who already have pre-existing conditions, but the need for these high-risk pools would decline over time.” You can’t just yank the rug out from people who have no choice but to depend on the ObamaCare system in the near term. But moving towards a market-based system will lower costs and premiums.

We also have to move away from the situation where a third party pays for everyday costs. Basic health care should not be covered by insurance. Your car insurance does not cover oil changes, and health insurance should not be used for basic care like checkups and treatment of everyday illnesses. When people have to make their own choices about how much to spend, prices will fall — and so will insurance premiums.

What about the people who can’t afford insurance (or who are simply irresponsible and do not buy insurance)? Well, first of all, with the above reforms, there would be far fewer people in that situation than there were in 2008, before ObamaCare was passed. But in the end, this is a separate question from the basic policy of how to repeal ObamaCare. There will always be the less fortunate in society who can’t afford some of the basics of life: housing, food, health care, and the like. And there will always be people who are irresponsible and don’t plan for their future, whether it’s in the area of health insurance, life insurance, retirement, their kids’ education . . . the list goes on.

For these groups of people, there will always be a tension between people like me, who recommend that such issues be taken care of by charity and the private sector when the problems to be addressed are serious or life-threatening, and leftists who want the government to take care of everybody. Either way, the reality of the world is that resources are scarce, and not every need can be met. This will always be true under any system. Government cannot simply decree that everyone will receive the best possible care for every illness. Any system, whether public or private, will result in some people not being able to access scarce resources. No government health care system is a panacea, and anyone who keeps their eyes open and watches for stories of people being mistreated under socialized health care will find them. The VA is just the tip of the iceberg.

But the solution is not to give ideal care to people who could have bought insurance but chose not to. Imagine doing that with any other type of insurance: Gallant buys a fire insurance policy and Goofus does not — but Goofus knows that government will buy him a new house if his house burns down. Goofus is not going to buy insurance in that scenario — and Gallant won’t either. The concept of insurance is destroyed by such an arrangement. Some Goofuses are going to suffer in the free market — but again, no resources in this world are unlimited, and Goofus will never have all his needs met without contributing to society.

Finally, let me briefly revisit a topic I covered before — because the reigning assumption appears to be that repealing ObamaCare would leave millions uninsured and worse off. This is completely bogus, and the fallacy of that argument must be central to any discussion of what to do next. For the full argument, I commend to you my post from March 8. Here’s the summary: to the extent that health care coverage has increased, that increase has resulted from two factors: a) gains in employer-sponsored insurance, and b) an expansion of Medicaid.

The former (increased employer-sponsored insurance) is not due to ObamaCare but rather is due to the (tepid) recovery and millions going back to work. Indeed, private coverage has been harmed by ObamaCare, since ObamaCare has hampered the recovery and hurt employers’ ability to hire more people. Since the passage of ObamaCare, believe it or not, “the share of Americans with private insurance has declined.” Yes: declined. So ObamaCare does not get credit for expanding private health insurance.

The latter factor (expansion of Medicaid) is not a net gain for Americans because outcomes under Medicaid are worse than outcomes of the uninsured. Under ObamaCare, age-adjusted death rates increased in 2015 after declining for decades — and life expectancy fell for the first time since 1993.

Repeal will not cost lives. If anything, full repeal with no replacement will save lives.

We can’t give up. Republicans promised repeal. The time to deliver is now. Republicans need to stop buying into the false premise that ObamaCare has helped people. Republicans need to enact real market-based reforms.

The principles articulated by Ted Cruz would be an excellent place to start.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]


Sanctuary Cities Prevent Wealthy Communities From Becoming Paralyzed And Stuck With Dirty Houses

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:35 am

[guest post by Dana]

The once truly Golden State has descended to this:

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed a brief in in support of a lawsuit filed by Santa Clara County challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities.

The amicus brief filed Wednesday says Trump’s order threatens to withdraw federal funds from states and cities that don’t help the federal government enforce immigration laws.

Santa Clara County last month asked a federal judge to block Trump’s executive order threatening the loss of nearly $1.7 billion in federal funds to local governments.

Becerra says he has a responsibility to protect state laws and policies that ensure public safety and protect the constitutional rights of residents.

He adds that Trump’s attempt to “hijack” state and local resources to do the Trump Administration’s bidding raises serious constitutional questions.

Becerra conveniently ignores that it is the law that the Trump administration seeks to enforce, not a whimsical, willy-nilly, pull-it-out-of-your-hat bidding. Becerra certainly does have a responsibility to protect state laws and policies that ensure public safety and protect the constitutional rights of residents, so why is he selectively exercising that responsibility to benefit just 6% of the state’s population? Where does that leave the rights and safety of the other 94%?

Anyway, to pile onto the absurdity, the uber-wealthy beach community of Malibu has jumped on the state’s sanctuary movement. Spearheading the effort is none other than onetime president – on television anyway – Martin Sheen. (The last time we saw Sheen was during the election when he channeled President Bartlett from the West Wing, and implored Republican members of the Electoral College not to vote for Donald Trump.)

Ah, yes, nothing says solidarity quite like the wealthy 1% desperate to maintain their lifestyles of luxury and ease:

The discussion inside Malibu City Hall over whether to become a sanctuary city last week bore the usual hallmarks of the heated national debate over illegal immigration.

While some residents praised the proposal, others blamed those who are in the country illegally for crime and called the move a thinly disguised rebuke of President Trump.

But it being Malibu, there was a celebrity twist. The idea was inspired by one of the town’s many famous residents: actor Martin Sheen. In December, he grabbed the lectern during a City Council meeting and — as if conjuring his inner President Josiah Bartlet from “The West Wing” — urged the city to become a sanctuary city.

Like many sanctuary city resolutions, Malibu’s is largely symbolic. Backers said the move, which passed on a 3-2 council vote, is a chance for Malibu’s privileged to stand up for the city’s vulnerable population.

Malibu is about 92% white and one of L.A. County’s wealthiest cities. Everyone agrees the city has workers who are not authorized to be in the United States, and they tend to serve the food at upscale eateries, clean the beachside mansions, look after children and keep the landscaping looking lush.

And confirming just how utterly out of touch with the every-man the uber-wealthy residents of Malibu are, Mikke Pierson, a supporter of the resolution, commented:

[I]t’s hard to imagine a Malibu without the many immigrants who toil there. That why expressing support for people who are in the country illegally is so important, he said.

“Heck … we would be paralyzed and no one’s houses would be cleaned,” the former surf shop owner said.


In a city where the median price of homes currently on the market is nearly $3.9 million, quite obviously illegal immigrants working in Malibu are compelled to make long commutes to the beach community from places like South Los Angeles and Compton where they can afford to live.

Juan Lopez, who works in Malibu, is quoted:

Most immigrants just want to work, and they end up doing jobs that hardly anyone else, let alone most Americans, want to do.

In each house, there’s one immigrant here. You see Spanish speakers taking care of babies in every house. They help people here.

Gosh, one might suppose that Malibu seeks to protect its own little service industry because the city would come to a grinding halt if residents had to do their own yard work, take care of their own children, and cook their own meals. Obviously, hiring those who are here legally and without fear of being reported would come at a much higher price than the wealthy residents of Malibu are willing to pay.

Self-serving elitism is never an attractive look – no matter how expensive the rags. And given that it has been the residents of Malibu who have worked exceedingly hard to keep illegal immigrants and other non-residents off their the public beaches in Malibu, that they now deem themselves a “sanctuary city” is spectacularly rich, indeed.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Paul Ryan: There Is A Path To Repealing ObamaCare Without 60 Votes In The Senate

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:59 pm

OK, I admit it: I cheated a little bit in the headline, by quoting Paul Ryan from 2016, rather than Paul “We’re Done Here” Ryan from 2017. But the principle is the same, even if the GOP wants to pretend it’s now impossible:

“It’s no surprise that someone named Obama vetoed a bill repealing Obamacare,” Ryan said in a statement.

“But here’s the thing. The idea that Obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. This law will collapse under its own weight, or it will be repealed. Because all those rules and procedures Senate Democrats have used to block us from doing this? That’s all history,” he added. “We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate. So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law.”

It’s next year, Paul Ryan. It’s next year, right now. You have a Republican president.

Send him the same bill. He’ll have no choice but to sign it into law.

Thanks to commenter JoeofPa.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

GOP Lawmaker: Previous ObamaCare Repeal Votes Were a Fraud

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:09 pm

Yup, this is pretty clear.

If the quote from Rep. Joe Barton isn’t showing up properly in your browser, I’ll repeat it. It deserves to be repeated anyway.

Reporters asked why, after Republicans held dozens of nearly-unanimous votes to repeal ObamaCare under President Obama, they were getting cold feet now that they control the levers of power.

“Sometimes you’re playing Fantasy Football and sometimes you’re in the real game,” he admitted. “We knew the President, if we could get a repeal bill to his desk, it would almost certainly be vetoed. This time we knew if it got to the President’s desk it would be signed.”

That’s about as blatant an admission of political fraud as you are ever likely to see.

Confirming that this was kabuki are Paul Ryan’s and Donald Trump’s reactions. Paul Ryan says they’re moving on from health care. After a very, very, very short effort. Trump is glad he got it out of the way:

Frauds. Charlatans. Liars.

I can’t exit the post without some reminders of how easy it was going to be:

And this:

My first day in office I’m going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law, and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability. You’re going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it’s gonna be so easy.

Con artists.

Today’s lack of a vote was glorious. We avoided a disaster. But giving up now? Unforgivable.

Pass the real repeal you promised.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

I Hope He Fails

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:15 am

As President Trump tries to strongarm Freedom Caucus members into voting for TrumpCare, I have just one thing to say:

I hope he fails.

Those words might sound familiar if you were following politics eight years ago. You youngsters may have to Google it.

Naturally, I want Donald Trump to succeed at the things he seeks to do that limit government and restore freedom. Appointing excellent Supreme Court justices and slashing regulation are some of the things I hope he succeeds in doing — and so far, so good.

But when it comes to putting political pressure on the few people in Congress who are for freedom, to get them to vote for TrumpCare, I do not want him to succeed.

TrumpCare retains the basic conceit of ObamaCare: that health care can be centrally planned. It must be voted down.

And then the GOP must deliver on what they promised: full repeal.

I want the country to succeed. And so, in this endeavor, I hope he fails.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]


There Is No Feminism. . .

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:09 pm

[guest post by JVW]

. . . quite like whiny Dog Trainer op-ed writer feminism.


Nunes Spokesperson: Nunes Had No Idea What He Was Talking About

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:53 pm

They didn’t say that in so many words, mind you. But that’s what they said.

This is your big vindication:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know “for sure” whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president’s wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson.

“He said he’ll have to get all the documents he requested from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows for sure,” a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday. Nunes was a member of the Trump transition team executive committee.

So the incidental collection of material relating to Trump’s team didn’t even necessarily involve any communications in which Trump’s team took part. In other words, for all this sh[vowel deleted]thead Nunes knows, the Big Reveal is people talking about Trump or members of his team?

Are you kidding me? This is what this clown held a press conference about?




If anyone here is vindicated, it’s me — since I warned people yesterday afternoon that Nunes appeared to be contradicting himself all over the place and was not inspiring confidence.

I’m willing to believe there was scandalous behavior on the part of many intelligence officials. That is a separate question from the idiot Donald Trump being even close to right about anything. Please keep claiming he was, Trumpalos. I enjoy watching you beclown yourselves.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

Trump: Why Should I Apologize for Tying Ted Cruz’s Dad to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am

On a day when Donald Trump is trying to get the House to pass TrumpCare (I hope he fails, by the way) and the Senate’s business is overshadowed by the Gorsuch hearings, we have a new interview in which Trump plays the jackass. And nowhere is his jackassery more on display than in this comment:

But you would agree also that some of the things you have said haven’t been true. You say that Ted Cruz’s father was with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Well that was in a newspaper. No, no, I like Ted Cruz, he’s a friend of mine. But that was in the newspaper. I wasn’t, I didn’t say that. I was referring to a newspaper. A Ted Cruz article referred to a newspaper story with, had a picture of Ted Cruz, his father, and Lee Harvey Oswald, having breakfast.

That gets close to the heart…

Why do you say that I have to apologize? I’m just quoting the newspaper, just like I quoted the judge the other day, Judge Napolitano, I quoted Judge Napolitano, just like I quoted Bret Baier, I mean Bret Baier mentioned the word wiretap. Now he can now deny it, or whatever he is doing, you know. But I watched Bret Baier, and he used that term. I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano, and he said that three sources have told him things that would make me right. I don’t know where he has gone with it since then. But I’m quoting highly respected people from highly respected television networks.

This is why it’s difficult for me to get that upset if there’s a bogus story about Trump in a newspaper or on TV. I still criticize such stories, out of a sense of intellectual honesty, but I don’t feel the same fervor that I feel when almost any other Republican is unfairly attacked. Because that’s the standard he sets: If it appears in some media outlet or even blog and it benefits me, I quote it. No matter how bogus the story obviously is, I quote it. And I never apologize, even if the story was clearly wrong.

That’s the standard you want to set? OK. Live by the bogus story, die by the bogus story.

I won’t feel sorry for you.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1922 secs.