[Guest post by DRJ]

I’m back and I want to address the topic of banning.

It’s been 7 days since Levi was banned and I intend to lift his 10 day ban if I can figure out how to do it. During the past week, Levi left comments in moderation complaining that banning him was unfair and cowardly. Too bad, Levi. You agreed to the rules in advance. Next time agree to rules you’re willing to live with.

Now for a completely different ban that involves fast food in South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times reports that an LA City Council committee unanimously agreed to a one-year ban on new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles in an effort to combat widespread obesity and diabetes in that area. The proposal must be approved by the full City Council and signed by the Mayor. If approved, the moratorium will last 1 year and can be extended for two 6-month terms.

The ban was almost certainly prompted by a study published in January 2004 in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded “Consumption of fast food among children in the United States seems to have an adverse effect on dietary quality in ways that plausibly could increase risk for obesity.” In a companion or follow-up article published in December 2004 in The Lancet, a 15-year study analyzed “… the association between reported fast-food habits and changes in bodyweight and insulin resistance over a 15-year period in the USA.” The long-term study concluded:

“Fast-food consumption has strong positive associations with weight gain and insulin resistance, suggesting that fast food increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom criticized the study on several grounds and noted especially that the study primarily recommended curtailment of fast food marketing. It looks like the LA City Council committee is taking this one step further by seeking to also ban new fast food restaurants.

I don’t know LA politics so I can’t tell if this proposal has a chance to pass the full City Council and be signed into law by the Mayor. But if this law is such a good idea, it should apply to all of LA and not just South LA … and I think we all know that won’t happen.

UPDATE: Dana links this Pajamas Media article that has more on the South LA ban. Thanks, Dana.

– DRJ

[Posted by WLS]

Update:  I’m putting this update at the top because it would have led this piece had I seen it earlier.  But the WaPo editorial page flays Obama’s speech yesterday on foreign policy.  The editorial is so strong I’m beginning to think the Post might being laying the groundwork for an eventual endorsement of McCain on the basis that Obama is just too inexperienced and too much of a lightweight to risk at this particular point in time.  Some significant excerpts:

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued — wrongly, as it turned out — that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Now, he describes as “an achievable goal” that “we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” How will that “true success” be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences.

I’ve been pondering a post that tries to tie together some of the emerging themes that Obama’s campaign is beginning to fracture as the attention paid to him transitions from the cocoon of the Dem primary season with a fawning press corps, incremental policy differences, and enraptured supporters, to an arena of campaign combat where his positions will be exposed to serious scrutiny and the press is compelled to report stories that are too good to ignore, even when they hurt him. I’ve always considered it significant that Obama has NEVER before run a seriously contested campaign against an opposition that would challenge the fundamental premises of his views, and that his campaign is being mostly by Chicago pols with little or no experience in running national presidential campaigns.

But then I came across blog post by Byron York at the NRO Corner yesterday about concerns in establishment Dem circles that Obama’s campaign tactics are beginning to undermine the premise of his candidacy, and it explained pretty well the premise I had been cogitating over.

I just got off the phone with a well-connected Democrat, trying to get a better read on this Democrats-miffed-with-Obama stuff. It’s real, he said, and more serious than the mostly process concerns outlined in the Politico story. Yes, party leaders are irritated at the Obama campaign’s go-it-alone style. “Another Democrat said that they want to do this without help from anyone inside the Beltway,” my source says, “because they want to arrive in town and not owe anyone anything. Which is a big gamble, because if it doesn’t work, everyone is going to blame the hell out of them.” But the bigger problem is the after-effect of Obama’s extensive “refinements” in policy. “What they thought they would do is improve their position on issues by moving Obama to the center,” the source says. “And what they failed to account for is that in improving their position politically, they underestimated the damage to the brand that was going to be inflicted by this.”

As evidence, the Democrat cites the recent Newsweek poll, which asked, “Some people say that since Barack Obama became the presumed Democratic nominee for president, he has changed his position on key policy issues to try to gain political advantage. Do you agree or disagree?” Fifty-three percent of the registered voters polled agreed, while 32 percent disagreed and 15 percent didn’t know. “If McCain can turn him into a politician, Obama has lost his advantage,” the Democrat says.

The great potential for damage is on Iraq, of course; if Obama’s supporters believed he has changed his position on Iraq, that would be devastating. With today’s speech and his recent clarifications of policy, the Democrat believes that Obama has probably stopped the damage on that score, although his base is skeptical in a way it wasn’t before. “I think this notion that the goal hasn’t changed, but of course we are going to listen to the generals on the ground — that’s a pretty safe position for him,” the Democrat says. But other flip-flops, like FISA, this Democrat says, could hurt him.

But isn’t concern about FISA pretty much inside baseball, limited to the hard-core base, people who might complain about Obama but always support him? Yes, the Democrat says, but, “His base cares about it a lot, and he made a big deal in the primaries about how he would filibuster. It was a matter of moral principle.” And it’s not just principle involved. It’s money. What was the source of Obama’s miraculous fundraising prowess? It was people who cared a lot about things like FISA. “Where FISA and Iraq hurt him is with small donors on the Internet,” the source says. “If the brand is really damaged, then the decision to opt out [of the campaign finance system] becomes a lot riskier, because the $100 donor is the donor who pays a lot of attention to that stuff. It’s the FISA-head who gave him 100 bucks.”

That, of course, connects to the uneasiness among Democrats with Obama’s fundraising in June. It’s July 15, and he still hasn’t announced how much he raised last month. Maybe it will turn out to be huge, and he’s been coy about it. But if it is underwhelming, and perhaps even continues Obama’s recent downward trend, there will be a lot of questions among Democrats who wonder whether Obama’s financial advantage is as much of a sure-thing as they thought.

More after the jump.

(more…)

Posted by WLS:

Today the  Washington post and LA times both run stories about the editing of proposed Congressional testimony of federal officials by members of the Vice President’s staff.  The subject of the deleted testimony was the impact on public health posed by global climate change.  The “whistleblower” — a novel description since this subject has been previously reported on – is former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett.   One of the edited officials was Julie Gerberding, the head of the Centers for Disease Control, who intended to testify that climate change is a “serious public health concern.” 

When that testimony was cut, Burnett attempted to send an Email to the White Houe on December 5 announcing EPA’s finding that global warming poses a danger to the public.  Burnett was responsible for climate change issues at EPA.  The WH declined to open Burnett’s email, because such a finding would obligate the agency to issue regulations to limit carbon dioxide emmissions.  The administration does not accept the accuracy of the science behind the issue of global warming, and the role of humans in causing global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide. 

Here is the disclosure for context about Burnett that the WaPo article included:

“The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of the Vice President (OVP) were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony,” Burnett, 31, a Stanford-trained economist and a Democrat, wrote in response to an inquiry from Boxer’s committee. “CEQ requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change.” …  Burnett — a grandson of high-tech entrepreneur David Packard and a member of the Packard Foundation’s board of trustees — has given more than $129,000 to Democratic campaigns in recent years, including $3,600 to presidential candidate Barack Obama (Ill.).

The LAT, on the other hand, had this to say about Burnett:

Burnett resigned as the EPA’s associate deputy administrator last month. He also has contributed $4,600 to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign….

This disclosure is certainly warranted, but is it sufficient given Burnett’s admitted conduct?  The LAT article describes his effort to hijack administration policy as follows:

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA was required to evaluate whether greenhouse gas emissions posed a risk and, if so, implement regulations on polluters….. In December, Burnett said, he sent the White House an e-mail finding, in response to the Supreme Court ruling, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a risk, a step toward regulation.   

This episode presents an interesting opportunity to consider the theory of the unitary executive.  Simply stated, the theory states that the President, as the only elected official of the Executive Branch of Government, solely possesses the executive power under the Constitution to execute the laws.  This theory would also hold that Congress cannot confer executive power on executive branch officials other than the President since the Constitution vests all executive Power in the President. 

By creating officials and agencies such as EPA, and imposing upon them mandatory obligations such as the one Burnett is attempting to force on the Bush Administration by putting his finding in an email, Congress is actually usurping the executive Power vested in the President by forcing the Administration to do something through an inferior administration official that the elected President is not prepared to do.   

Posted by WLS:

This has probably been read by most here already.  But it pretty much lays on the table what critics of Obama’s politics of fakery have been saying about him for a while now.  Most of this was obvious to those who cared to look a year ago.  

The only thing new the campaign has revealed thus far in my view is that Obama is not nearly as smart as was thought to be the case, and his world view has been stunted by his failure to look far beyond the borders of South Side Chicago politics for the last 15 years. 

Harvard Law Review Editor??  Big deal — he never published an article. 

Constitutional Law Professor?? False — adjunct faculty lecturer who never published a single piece of scholarship on the subject and whose public pronouncements on the topic are laughable to those of us who have spent time studying the issues. 

The closing sentences are the best: 

He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

There you have it.  The Dems have settled on a nominee with less character and dedication to principle than the King of Triangulation Bill Clinton. 

What a party.   

Posted by WLS: 

In reading some columns the last couple days, it suddenly dawned on me the very real possibility of a coming political Apocalypse in the Presidential Election of 2012. 

First was this National Journal article  yesterday by Ronald Brownstein, which had this interesting observation:

But cumulatively through the primaries, exit polls found that Obama won only 35 percent of the Latino vote, 35 percent of the Catholic vote, 30 percent among whites without college degrees, and 28 percent among white seniors—groups that the party typically relies upon. He also faces doubts among Jews, a small bloc that might nevertheless tip the scales in Florida and Pennsylvania…. But his struggles with such groups as Latinos and working-class whites increase the odds that he will need to assemble a new coalition to win, probably one tilted more upscale than usual for Democrats.

The common theme here is that Clinton’s potential route to the White House was one that Democrats have followed successfully before. For Obama to win, he probably will need to blaze new paths.  

That second paragraph points out that Clinton could have assembled the same electoral equation that led to victory for her husband twice, Jimmy Carter, and a photo finish for Al Gore.  The path that Obama must take is the one that has failed the Dems with McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.    The point simply is that the hand the Dems are playing from is historically a loser — not saying that they will lose this year, but only that it hasn’t been a combination that has prevailed in the past.

Next I was reading this column by George Will, in which I noted this observation:

…. many Democrats do not fathom the gratitude that less-blinkered Americans feel for Obama because he has closed the Clinton parenthesis in our presidential history.

Finally, I was taken by this observation in Peggy Noonan’s column today in the WSJ:

May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

They had a great and roaring fight, a state-by-state struggle unprecedented in the history of presidential primaries….

All of this is impressive, but more than that, they threw off Clintonism…. They threw off the idea that dynasticism was an unstoppable dynamic in modern politics, that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton could, would, go on forever. They said: “No, that is not the way we do it.”

They threw off the idea of inevitability…. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don’t like that, I don’t like the way she does it, I’m not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in….

May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party.

And, after cogitating on these thoughts for a few hours, it suddenly struck me that Noonan is completely wrong.   Here’s the scenario:

1)  It proves true that Obama comes into the general election season a greatly diminished candidate compared to what he was a year ago when he was a blank slate upon which the left wing and the media could project all their “If MLK/RFK could have had a baby together” fantasies.  Combine his electoral performance among DEMOCRAT voters over the last 10 weeks with the political beating he is about to experience for the first time in his career, and I think its quite possible he will prove to be another losing hand for the Dems trying to build a winning  general election coalition that relies primarily on the young,  the white affluent liberal, and the African-American voters in large blocks.

2)  Following a win achieved practically by default in a less-than-inspiring campaign, McCain is faced with an extremely hostile and even more liberal Democrat Congressional majority which feels cheated out of the WH by a bunch of bigoted rednecks in the flyover states.  True to his colors, McCain agrees to pursue  largely the liberal’s agenda in Congress, on which he manages to gain some concessions around the edges in order to pick up a smattering of GOP votes here and there, declaring himself a bipartisan success as President even if those policies wreck the country.  His term would clearly represent a disappointment to the GOP base.

3)  A health scare mid-way through the third year of his presidency – following another disappointing round of Congressional elections for the GOP in 2010 — and with horrendous approval ratings from both the GOP base and the left wing that continues to feel cheated out of the WH, McCain pulls an LBJ, and announces that he won’t run for a second term.

4)  Hillary, who began running for President the day of McCain’s inaugural on the “I Told You So” platform, and having reseized the levers of power in the DNC, uses the strength of her 17+ million primary votes in 2008, and the threat from every liberal Dem. woman to withhold certain pleasures from their Dem. male sig. others unless they too pledged unqualified fealty to Hillary 2012, to strong-arm every other challenger out of the primary contest before the first vote is cast in Iowa.    

5)  Social and evangelical conservatives, having drilled an empty hole in 2008 in trying to find a true conservative candidate — not a fake like Romney or an unelectable nutjob like Huckabee — coalesce very early around the one true conservative standard bearer who would draw no objection from the economic conservatives or national security conservatives, and who has always been viewed as the true political talent in his family….

And there you have it — the Political Apocalypse of 2012:  Hillary Clinton v. Jeb Bush.

Clinton v. Bush — to the death, winner take all.

 We can dream, can’t we?

Posted by WLS:

I’ve watched with dismay as Dan Abrams has lowered himself into the sewer over at MSNBC by going completely in the tank for Obama, and turning the network into a full-time operative of the DNC.  But Abrams is clearly one of the principal players behind that move, as it began after he gave up his prior show a couple years ago to be program director for the network.  I never imagined he was anything but a New York liberal, but in his prior incarnation when his show focused mainly on legal affairs, I found him to be a fair and insightful inquisitor of his guests and their viewpoints.

Abrams new show is only marginally less partisan than Dolpermann’s, but last night he reached a new low for himself.

At about the halfway mark the show he did a segment on the new video that emerged yesterday of the South Side Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger and his ridiculous “sermon” last Sunday at Obama’s church in Chicago.  Pfleger is a long-time ally retired Rev. Wright, and has appeared with and spoken glowingly of Louis Farrakhan.

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

If I were a Democrat, here’s what I would be thinking:

1. Hillary is more electable. She has garnered more votes in large states that will be important in the general election - states like Ohio, California, and New York. In addition, she has been stronger with white voters in states like Indiana, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

However, Hillary has strong negatives. As a Clinton, she has already alienated a sizable percentage of the electorate. In addition, her nomination - even if it occurs according to Party rules - will seem like a betrayal to young voters and black voters who may punish the Democratic Party for years to come.

2. Obama has won more votes and pledged delegates and denying him the nomination seems unfair and discriminatory.

However, Obama’s wins have come primarily in caucus states and in states with large African-American populations. Some of those states may vote Republican in the general election. He also has his share of negatives from Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, etc. Thus, Obama has problems because Hillary has won the important Democratic states and she may be more electable.

Many Democrats are urging Hillary to end her campaign and endorse Obama or accept a VP slot. On the surface, both seem like solutions to the Democrats’ concerns but I don’t think they are. Getting Hillary out of the race or to accept a lower slot lets Democrats sweep these concerns under the rug but it doesn’t make them go away.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

LULAC of Texas and the Mexican-American Bar Association of Houston have sued the Texas Democratic Party in federal court claiming the Texas Two-Step primary/caucus process unfairly dilutes Hispanic votes by allocating them fewer delegates than the votes alone would yield:

“Texas Democrats distribute the state’s 193 delegates using both a primary and a caucus, but the distribution favors state Senate districts that had high voter turnout in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections. That meant that on March 4, predominantly Hispanic districts, in which turnout was low in 2004 and 2006, got fewer delegates than others, particularly urban, predominantly black districts. Latino districts generally favored Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; black districts favored her rival, Barack Obama.”

The groups also allege the Democratic Party failed to seek clearance required by the U.S. Justice Department for the process. The lawsuit does not seek to unseat the Texas delegation. Democratic Party leaders responded that Texas delegates would not be finalized until the June Convention and groups are free to argue their claims until then.

I’m not impressed with caucus systems because they seem to favor entrenched interests, but obviously many states and both parties use caucuses. The two-step process used by Texas Democrats seems especially difficult and strange, but maybe that will change because of this election.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Last month, Patterico and I posted here and here on a motion filed by indicted attorney James G. Perdigao asking a federal judge to recuse the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Louisiana from prosecuting his case. The U.S. Attorney’s office responded vigorously to the motion and asked the judge to dismiss and seal the motion to recuse.

Today a federal judge set Perdigao’s motion to recuse for hearing on May 21, 2008. This grants Perdigao the opportunity to offer evidence supporting the claims set forth in his motion to recuse, claims that may impact the U.S. Attorney’s office and the conviction of former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards.

– DRJ

Posted by WLS: 

Now that there is a presumptive Dimocrit nominee for the general election, I’m going to start a recurring series of postings commenting on non-answers given by Obama to direct questions posed to him by the media and others. 

The problem I expect to see develop in the very near term is the dramatic curtailment of Obama’s availability to answer questions in a format that provides for any level of candidness.  He is clearly an effective speaker when working with a teleprompter and a script, but his impromptu responses to media questions are largely void of substance.  When they do have substance they often amount to a dodge of the issue, but sometimes they contain some nugget of information about the stealth candidate that is illuminating with respect to his real beliefs.  As these more revealing comments appear I’m going to highlight them, and the implications of those comments in future policy issues.

Yesterday Obama appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s show on CNN.  As an initial entry in this series, I present the following “answer” on a simple question about whether he might advocate an increase in the capital gains tax rate:

[Blitzer]   Because they’re arguing already that you want to increase capital gains taxes, for example, on investments, and stocks, and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: A lot of middle-class people have those kinds of accounts. If they’re…

OBAMA: If they have, — Wolf, if they have a 401(k), then they are going to see those taxes deferred, and they’re going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So, that’s a phony argument. And this is something that you have seen the Republicans consistently do, is they try to make this broad- based argument about, he’s going to raise your taxes as a cover for them eliminating taxes for people like myself and you, who can afford to pay a little bit more…

Now this was a pretty straight-forward question — whether he’s suspectible to GOP claims that he will raise the capital gains tax rate, and what that means for middle class Americans.   

Rather than address the question — by saying, for example, that the capital gains tax rate it too low and should be raised, or that  it is fine where it is and will be left alone — he answers with a complete obfuscation. 

401(k) plans have nothing to do with capital gains taxes.  Contributions to 401(k) plans are made with pre-tax earnings, and the withdrawals upon eligibility are taken as ordinary income and taxed accordingly at the tax rate applicable to the retiree — including that part of the plan’s funds the constitute appreciation/ capital gains.    

Wolf Blitzer is too much of an idiot to follow-up by pointing out that Obama hadn’t answered the question, and the issue of raising the capital gains tax rate extends far beyond simply raising taxes on the “rich”.  

To suggest that American households only own stocks in their 401(k) plan — and to ignore completely the issue of capital gains taxes on investment accounts, college savings accounts, on the sale of homes, farms, or other real property –  reflects either ignorance of basic tax issues, or an unwillingness by Obama to state his positions honestly.

Frankly, I think its more of the former than the latter. 

Obama would be only the most recent example in my life of a Harvard Law School egghead who lacked a basic comprehension of day-to-day issues facing ordinary Americans.  Some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met — including some of the worst lawyers I’ve ever encountered — were graduates of elite East Coast academic institutions.   

[Guest post by DRJ]

Get ready, Californians.

Democrats in the California Legislature plan to solve the $20B budget shortfall by taxing your six-packs ($1.80 per pack), iTune downloads ($0.08 per download), and plastic grocery bags ($0.25 each). Other proposals include increased taxes on porn magazines, sex toys, yachts, and gas-guzzling vehicles.

At least they aren’t taxing California blogs. Yet.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Apparently the special parking and permits granted to the Bay Area Code Pink to protest the Marine Corp recruiting center in Berkeley hasn’t done the trick. Now Code Pink is calling on area witches, crones and sirens to bewitch the Marines:

“Friday, May 9th: Witches, Crones, Sirens: perform rituals of leaving, cast a spell of peace and love over the station, rendering nil the recruiting of our youth to become fodder for this occupation of Iraq.”

Catherine Moy at Move America Forward broke the story and adds this detail:

“This should be no surprise. One of Code Pink’s mamas is Miriam Simos, a bisexual feminist witch living in Berkeley who goes by the name “Starhawk.” I’m sure Starhawk and the rest of the witches of Code Pink will work up a real witches’ brew of hate for our Marines.”

I hope Code Pink ends up with three witches. The symbolism would be perfect.

– DRJ