Monday, April 19, 2010

Cruising the Web

Politico notes that there are two Obamas: the one that inside-the-Beltway writers think is so successful and the one who isn't all that popular once you start looking at the rest of the country.

Matt Lewis thinks that Chris Christie's toughness in New Jersey may make Republicans seem more believable when they claim that they will cut spending. It's a nice thought, but I have no confidence in the congressional GOP despite the presence of some members whom I truly respect.

Dahlia Litwick finds that liberal law students are all frowny-faced because they just don't see any true progressives among the proposed nominees to fill Stevens' seat. What? The nomination of the "wise Latina" didn't fulfill their dreams? Who knew? Poor dears.

William Jacobson has a lot of fun with Lithwick's column.
I understand the feeling. I never recovered from Robert Bork being Borked by a Senator who left a girl to die in a watery ditch at the side of the road and never spent a day in jail, while spending the rest of his life lecturing conservatives about compassion and decency. But that's just me.

I have some alternative views as to why liberal law students are so sad:

1. Conservatives are happier than liberals in general. It's the nature of the universe.
2. Religious people are happier than non-religious people, and conservatives are more religious than liberals.
3. The Big Law model is failing, which means that liberal law students cannot do pro bono work for Gitmo detainees while getting paid $160k a year right out of law school.
4. Liberal legal heroes are not that heroic because in a law school almost everyone is liberal; it's about as hard as riding first class on a frequent flyer upgrade. By contrast, being conservative in a law school requires the right stuff, much like test pilots, the Mercury astronauts, and the people who walked on the Moon.
5. Far more people self-identify as conservative than liberal, and leaving the liberal law school cocoon sucks.
6. Law schools cannot change the first 5 reasons.
Hee hee.

Peter Baker muses in the NYT that we're about to see a sorta, kinda battle between Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama over constitutional interpretations. One Obama supporter thinks that it would be a great thing to see a debate between Barack Obama and John Roberts.
The debate between the men, by necessity, takes place in this way — indirectly, and soon through the confirmation hearing of a new nominee. Christopher Edley Jr., an Obama adviser and dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, said it was a shame the two could not have at it one on one.

“Televise this chief justice and this president on stage at the Kennedy Center for three hours talking about the role of government and the future of our polity,” Mr. Edley said. “This historic clash of intellectual titans would be the most powerful civics lesson since the Federalist Papers, and we could sure use it.”
Sorry, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Obama is an intellectual titan when it comes to constitutional interpretation. It might be a great civics lesson, but it would not be an even fight. I would so place money on Roberts if we were ever to have that debate. It would be a joy to watch.

George Will explains why adopting a VAT would be such a terrible mistake.

Ed Morrissey links to this story in the NYT concerning what has happened in the state of New York due to their health insurance provisions which they have had in effect for almost a decade and which give us a model of ObamaCare. New York mandates that everyone, regardless of preexisting conditions is guaranteed health care. And the insurance companies can't charge people with poor health more than those with great health. The result is that health people have been dropping their policies since they know that they can get health care later if they should get sick. The result is that the insurance companies have had to raise prices because they have more sick people in their groups. So New York has some of the highest premiums in the country. And this is what will be coming to us. Of course, ObamaCare mandates that everyone buy health care, but the cost of the policies will still cost a lot more than the fines that will be imposed. It's awfully nice of the New York Times to let us know how disastrous these provisions have been for the state of New York after ObamaCare was passed. As Morrissey writes,
Finally, this problem has unfolded in New York for years. The premium problem in individual markets — the very kind that ObamaCare requires — were well known to the New York Times. They had almost a year to report this during the health-care debate before a vote was taken. Instead, they report it almost a month after Congress passed the bill, and stuck it in the Regional section where national readers might have missed it. Shameful.
And of course the Democrats ignored the lessons of New York just as they ignored the failures of similar programs in Massachusetts and Tennessee. We might have a system with laboratories of democracy, but that is useless if our elected representatives ignore the lessons from those laboratories.


Tacitus Voltaire said...

While Washington talks about Obama’s new mojo, polls show voters outside the Beltway are sulking — soured on the president, his party and his program. The Gallup Poll has Obama’s approval rating at an ominous 49 percent, after hitting a record low of 47 percent last weekend.

ronald reagan's gallup approval rating at the same point in his presidency: 43% (april 1982). it hit a low of 35% jan 1883

reagan's approval didn't improve to 48% again until june 24th 1983

clearly, this was very "ominous"

(scary music here, please)


Tacitus Voltaire said...

pat, of course, has a fascinating theory that we shouldn't talk about things that happened in the 80s, since the reagan administration was so long ago that everything about it is irrelevant now

or is that only things that are inconvenient to know about it that are irrelevant?

Stan said...

Reagan was bashed constantly by the news media. Obama gets constant tongue baths. The difference gets sorted out at the ballot box. Obama's numbers, in light of MSM slurping, are a lot worse than Reagan's.

Betsy, Obama not an intellectual titan?! I haven't seen any evidence that he has a clue. His failure to understand any of the implications of his policy proposals makes him look like a glib empty suit. And not really all that glib.

John A said...

Senate voted 85-13 Thursday
against a VAT. Of course, it was "non-binding."

Pat Patterson said...

Since TV is off/topic it doesn't really matter if he finds irrelevancies from 30 years ago. Unless of course he doesn't want to see polls on creationism, the death penalty, abortion and same-sex marriage.

Plus under Reagan there were the rather obvious and immediate effects of actual tax cuts not the ersatz ones that the left is begruding the American taxpayers.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

actual tax cuts not the ersatz ones

perhaps pat would like to back up his off the cuff bloviating with an actual comparison of the tax breaks that a family making, say, a median average income of 55k/yr would have gotten under the reagan tax cuts as opposed to the obama tax cuts

which i'm sure you can do, pat, since you claim here to know

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Reagan was bashed constantly by the news media. Obama gets constant tongue baths.

your misperception here is gross. i was in my 30s during the reagan administration and i remember well how he was lionized

how old were you at that time?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

tfhr said...

Given your frequent use of the term, I suppose "***-*******" is a popular and common pastime in your own social circles

Dr Weevil said...
Typically, people who call others "**********" (or variations on the same) are foul-mouthed morons who need to go away and leave the conversation to the grownups

tfhr said...
Tacitus Vulgair,

How do you expect to carry on a civil debate over any point if you insist on twisting your deviant sexual proclivities into the commentary? What you and Anderson Cooper hold in common should be kept private

is this the way adults with manners request other people to stop using a common english phrase that they have discovered some obscene use for, and claim to be disgusted at?

do you wonder why people fail to honor requests that are phrased as pre-adolescent insults?

is this the way tea party members make their requests? is this how tfhr and dr weevil represent the movement?

seriously? you expect me to honor demands phrased as vulgar insults?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

a certain poster here who professes to know something about polls and elections has left this record of his judgement

(oct 2006)
Will the MSM "steal" this election?
I bumped into a liberal Democrat the other day. Big smile on his face, he asked if I was ready for a Democratic Congress. I told him that I didn't think it was going to happen. He took that as evidence that I was in denial, simply unwilling to face reality.

I don't know what is going to happen in November. I'm sure that the polls are suspect. There is simply too much evidence over the last 3 or 4 election cycles that the polls always over-sample Democrats. The polls always underestimate how well the GOP vote comes in on election day. So I think things are likely to be really close come election night.

What will happen if all the MSM predictions of a Democratic tsunami turn out to be as worthless as their news product? I guess we should expect that the left-wing netnuts will go bananas. How many ordinary Democrats will join them in concluding that the evil Bush-Rove machince stole the election? Given what the MSM has been telling them, I think there is a very real danger of it happening.

this is what happens when one mistakes ones prejudices for judgement

Pat Patterson said...

No, this is what happens when a simply irresponsible person quotes and then neither names the person being quoted and them makes no attempt to address the topic of Betsy's post. even remotely on topic. Maybe it's time for TV to simply start his own site so instead of commenting on the problems NY is having with its health care programs he can ramble on about whatever.

Or he can resort to pre-teen euphemisms while searching the streets of Berkeley for that ephemeral DMV office.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Pat Patterson said...
No, this is what happens

perhaps pat could try to discuss issues for a change

Tacitus Voltaire said...

oh, by the way, pat - i do have a blog. two, actually. just follow the links and you can say whatever you please on them

Pat Patterson said...

And one has no posts that I can discern and the other, though interesting, is not political. So we are back to the same problem of irrelevant comments on Betsy's site and a pathological need to always be in the opposition. And I know this may come as a shock but quite a few people won't comment on someone else's website if the topic is either not interesting or they really don't have anything to say about the topic. And if you are attempting to drag the curious to your sites then you seem to have failed miserably.

Now this particular thread, in responding to Betsy, should have talked about the idea of a debate between Roberts and Obama, the VAT idea that is being floated among the chatterati and the problems being ignored by the Democrats concerning the healthcare programs in three states. I admittedly haven't talked much about them but I at least mentioned what the thread should be rather than posting the same type of snark that you have done for several days now. Especially irritating in that not once have you either identified your source nor addressed how these numbers are relevant.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

and here is the other blog:

Tacitus Voltaire said...

i did ask you to justify your remark about taxes, pat - here, i'll repeat it for you:

pat patterson:
actual tax cuts not the ersatz ones

perhaps pat would like to back up his off the cuff bloviating with an actual comparison of the tax breaks that a family making, say, a median average income of 55k/yr would have gotten under the reagan tax cuts as opposed to the obama tax cuts

which i'm sure you can do, pat, since you claim here to know

Pat Patterson said...

I'd already mentioned in other thread how much people of a certain income were making in tax cuts, $13 a week if single and $70 if a family. If Pres Obama and his acoytes want to claim those are tax cuts that matter then so be it.

Pat Patterson said...

One post in almost three years? No wonder you're lonely and crying for attention.