Thursday, May 12, 2011

Cruising the Web

Jennifer Rubin puts her labor-lawyer hat on and analyzes the case law indicating why the NLRB's claim that Boeing can't move to a right-to-work state as an outrageous break from past labor decisions. She points out that, if the NLRB wins this battle, it will have handed Republican candidates a very potent argument in every right-to-work state.

The WSJ editorial page has a devastating column
blasting Mitt Romney for his vision of the role of government based on Romneycare. Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin delivers the ultimate insult by saying that Romney is the Hillary Clinton of this election cycle. And Michael Barone takes umbrage at descriptions of Mitt Romney as the GOP frontrunner and the cliché that the GOP always nominates the last election's frontrunner.

John Cogan of the Hoover Institute
points out that the average married couple retiring next year will retire and receive $1 million in cash and health-care entitlement benefits over their remaining expected lifetimes. And those benefits are going to be paid for by the young workers of today, not by the contributions that that couple paid in over their lifetimes of work. Those contributions have already been spent.

Megan McArdle tries to figure out
what function Groupon serves.

Larry Elder argues that if we're going to buy that Obama's decision to order the mission against bin Laden was a truly "gutsy" decision, what about George W. Bush's 2007 decision to undertake the "surge" in Iraq? by any standard, that was a much more gutsy decision.

Perhaps arguments such as Larry Elder is making are resonating. Jim Geraghty notices that in the AP poll that came out yesterday to show Obama with a 60% approval rating, President Bush's approval rating is now at 50%. And this is in a poll that skews Democratic in its sample by 17 points. Ah, the wonders of supposed random sampling.

Peter Wehner argues rightly against conservative purity tests. I've always opposed the idea that there is some ideal Republican politician out there and we should trash every other candidate who doesn't measure up to this Platonian ideal.

And while most of the leading GOP candidates fail the "cap-and-trade" purity test, Mitch Daniels passes it. Perhaps the other candidates will be calling for a truce on "cap and trade."

Now you can buy at an auction for charity the extremely weird hat that Princess Beatrice wore to the royal wedding. Sounds like a good idea - when else could she ever wear it again?

If Princess Beatrice's fascinator hat doesn't entice you, you can buy the Rambama, a Rambo-style SEAL action figure of President Obama. It's just $34.95 plus shipping.


Stan said...


The NLRB decision is already a huge opening for the GOP. Just as the decision to end the DC scholarship program, Obama's unlawful screwing of bondholders to give freebies to the UAW, and Obama's sellout of oil workers in the Gulf. The GOP should hammer the Dems for their servile compliance to the demands of special interests to the detriment of little people. The Democrats are the party of special interests. Every Republican candidate should be made to repeat it 3 times a day.

The all time classic was the luxury tax of 1990 which was supposed to punish the rich. Instead, the rich just didn't buy new boats for a while and fewer cars. Half the workers in the boat industry lost the jobs. Most small family businesses in the industry, buit over generations, lost everything. Tax collections for the tax were tiny and dwarfed by the lost tax revenue of bankrupt businesses and laid off workers. Plus unemployment, welfare, and food stamps added to the cost. A complete lose-lose-lose all around.

Dems didn't care. It was all about being seen as class warriors.

ic said...

"...if ... Obama's decision ... was a truly "gutsy" decision, what about George W. Bush's 2007 decision to undertake the "surge" in Iraq?"

When Marshall Will Kane makes a decision, Marshall Will Kane makes a decision, comes with the job; whenever Barney Fife makes a decision, Barney Fife makes a "gutsy" decision, beyond expectation.

The decision to pee in a toilet, is no decision, is expected of a person older than two. The decision to take away a six month old baby's diapers and hope he could change and pee in the toilet is a "gutsy" decision.

Perspective, man, perspective!

mark said...

What a travesty to compare in any way the surge in Iraq to the killing of OBL!
The surge was a do-over or a "mulligan". Had Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned the war competently from the beginning, thousands of lives and money would have been saved. Instead, they jettisoned any officials who warned they needed more troops and more planning. Yes, the surge paid off in the end (as did replacing Rumsfeld with Gates). But it was a last ditch effort to stave off total failure.

Nobody expected Obama to get OBL because after seven years of failure, most assumed the trail was cold. After Bush said he was no longer interested in or worried about OBL, Obama renewed the fight. Consider it a "surge" in bringing justice those who attack our country.

Repubs just can't stand Obama's success. The same people who have absolved Bush from our economic problems (because Obama has had a whole two years to turn things around), now want to credit Bush (even though he's been out of office for two years.
Please, go ahead and keep citing all the things you think Bush did to help get Obama. And I'll keep reminding you that Bush did nothing in the eight months preceding 9/11 terrorism (despite several warnings), and I'll keep quoting his cowardly, despicable comments about not being worried about OBL.

ic said...

"...because after seven years of failure, most assumed the trail was cold"

Really? Most? Like everybody you know? If you had paid attention and not an Obamaite, you would notice the lead was developed and traced for at least four years. The lead was waterboarded from KSM in Gitmo. In case you don't know, four years ago, W was in the White House. Osama, the Caveman who caused the biggest man-made-disaster was decommissioned with kinectic actions by Cheney's Assassination Squad.

Btw, the Iraq War was the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievement, prior to Obama's killing of Osama with his bare hands.

Pat Patterson said...

Are we in the summer of recovery yet? But the President Obama said, "My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him,” he said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

That doesn't exactly sound like the shoot to kill claims Obama made as a candidate and also, when looking at the entire transcript of Bush's comments, mark usually gets the vapors over the MSNBC version, sounds remarkably similar.

mark said...

Your first post was incomprehensible - your second was pathetic. I believe most people had given up on getting OBL after seven years of failure. A number of people here stated that he was probably dead or no longer active as a leader. Not due to any real intelligence, but just because it was the only defense for Bush's pull-back from his pledge to kill bin Laden.
We don't know if Bush could have prevented 9/11 by taking action on the intelligence he received. We do know that he failed in his promise to get OBL. Obama made the same promise and kept it. And you folks just can't stand it.

equitus said...

Thanks for the link to the WSJ editorial on Romney. It is now very clear to me that he's not my candidate.

Imhotep said...

INDIANAPOLIS— People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

What do people here think of this???