Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Cruising the Web

Why won't a NASA scientist or one at the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section release information about their global warming research in response to sFOIA request. That is the law. David Harsanyi is just asking.

The WSJ says that we're seeing the fourth Democratic crack-up since 1960. This is the fourth time that Democrats have swept into office with overwhelming majorities and pundits told us that the Republicans were just dead as a viable party. It happened with LBJ's landslide victory in 1964, Democratic victories after Watergate culminating with Jimmy Carter's 1976 election, Bill Clinton's victories in 1992, and most recently with Barack Obama's historical election in 2008. Each time the Democrats rather rapidly lost their edge as they overread the meaning of their victories and the country moved back to its natural central-right position.

John Merline makes much the same argument and adds in that the Republicans also have had their moments of hubris when they misread election results to think that they had entered an age of a permanent Republican majority. Well, our system is just not geared towards permanent electoral majorities. I don't think we'll see again a period of long, multi-decade dominance of the country by one party or the other. Each party, once it gets into office, tends to overreach and start the pendulum swinging back.

John Stossel offers up more evidence
that giving parents choice of which school they can send their children to is the secret to improving education for all. And then he asks why we're still pouring money into Head Start when no data show that the program helps students.

The Democrats must be worried about California. They're launching preemptive attacks on Meg Whitman. Why anyone would want to be governor of that state is beyond me, but can Californians really want to send Jerry Brown to Sacramento yet again? Is that the best that the state Democratic Party can come up with?

Harry Reid desperately needs a jobs bill
to improve his image back home where Nevada has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. But he just can't help bollixing things up by his clumsy maneuvering in the Senate.

Five ways that the Democrats could lose the Senate.

How cool is this? Justice Scalia responded to a letter asking for his opinion of whether there is a right for a state to secede. Scalia responded,
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
(Link via Orin Kerr at Volokh)


Pat Patterson said...

I had pretty much dismissed Meg Whitman's chances after her YouTube Van Jones gaffe. But it didn't seem to hurt her and she soon, sort of, apologized. These ads won't really hurt because they are overwrought and somewhat unbelievable. What could hurt her, if the Democrats ever figure it out, is that she seems passive and too reliant on bromides without any real indication of how hard reformig CA will be. Does anybody really think that our problems are due to a lack of confidence and either ourselves or the state?

dave in boca said...

The WSJ has the right wavelength in picturing the liberal crackup.

The Dems are pushing the same tired watered-down Marxism that prevailed when I worked for Gene McCarthy in '68 on his National Staff [John Podesta worked for me in a two-man storefront in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn!]. Back then the buzz was about "The Movement," a sort of inevitable progression toward a socialist state mirroring the Social Democrats in Europe with a foreign policy rather benign toward the USSR's imperialism. Indeed, I can remember Gene McCarthy commenting at the Chicago Convention that the crushing of the Velvet Revolution in Prague was "of no importance."

The Wall Street Journal does have the Dems' history rhyming whenever they get their hands on the WH. Always the tendency to tax and spend from a statist "commanding heights" which tries to monopolize the levers of power. Sadly, after Carter and Clinton, GWB repeated some of their mistakes almost by inference and unlike Carter and especially Clinton, GWB didn't want to get his hands dirty pushing unpopular legislation such as Social Security reform when it ran into absurd hysterics by Nancy Botox in '05, as she raved about Katrina & blew him off his game.

Obama appears to be more leftist than Carter or Clinton, coming from a Chicago Machine which is a version of an urban mixed economy. To try to nationalize Chicago's crooked unions and gigantic public sector corruption made us all want to gag and puke---especially independents who thought he might be sincere about transparency. No C-Span for this little o.

ic said...

"why we're still pouring money into Head Start when no data show that the program helps students."

Helps the students? The program is to help Head Start teachers.

Seems it's better to pay them to babysit than to pay them with welfare checks.

Old Rebel said...

Scalia obviously belongs to the "might makes right" school of constitutional law.

Bachbone said...

Evidently Obama's closing of Yucca Mountain wasn't enough to pull Reid's chestnuts out of the fire, eh? And now that The One allegedly wants to restart nuclear power plant constructions, how long will it be until he or his successor has to reopen Yucca Mountain? Or is The One just employing another of his usual "lookey over here" misdirection ploys to get our attention off something he's doing elsewhere that he doesn't want noticed? He may have no intention at all of building nuclear plants.

Sen. Bayh may be the Democrat who benefits most from his party's demise. He's had the good sense to get out with $13 million he can bank and wait for an opportune moment to get back in when voters are willing to elect someone they see as having told Congress to "go jump in the Potomac." Other than Palin, no Republicans have distanced themselves, and she doesn't (yet?) have the national following to get elected. A national election could come down to Bayh simply because he had the wisdom to leave the mosh pit.

Pat Patterson said...

I might agree except for over at least the last one hundred years no sitting President has been defeated for his party's nomination for a second term. Even Johnson who was very unpopular in 1968 defeated Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire and already had quite a few committed delegates but then chose to not run again.

So if Bayh is that subtle he doesn't seem to realize that if Pres Obama wants to run again he will get the nomination and Bayh probably should get used to the idea of waiting seven years for his chance.