Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Cruising the web

Bob Kerrey sounds pretty lackadaisical about his run for the Nebraska Senate seat.
“I’m not running because I need to be a senator,” he said. “In fact, I barely want to be. I’m willing to do it because I’m worried about our country. There’s a set of problems that aren’t going to be solved unless people are willing to compromise.”
Yeah, yeah. We know what it means when a Democrat talks about compromise. If he barely wants to be a senator, perhaps the voters could oblige him by letting him stay in New York.

Headline from Yahoo News: "Fact Checking is Not the Obama Campaign's Strong Suit." Strange to believe but the Obama campaign is lying about Romney's record in Massachusetts.
But Romney did not leave the state with a $1.1 billion debt. Romney exercised fiscally responsible tactics and exited the governor's office with a balanced budget. The Los Angeles Times credits $384 million in Romney spending cuts and a "replenished" $2 billion rainy-day fund as important factors in balancing the state's budget.

There was no actual Romney induced deficit in Massachusetts. Romney passed on words of caution to his successor about a potential shortfall if the state maintained the current rate of spending.
But why let a few facts get in the way of a good demagogic attack.

Ramesh Ponnoru identifies the strongest attack that the Obama campaign can make on Romney. Maybe they're waiting to bring this out in the fall.

Guess what? Affirmative Action disproportionately hurts Asian-Americans and they've filed an amicus brief on the upcoming University of Texas case to argue that.

More bad news for Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren, who has railed against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures, took part in about a dozen Oklahoma real estate deals that netted her and her family hefty profits through maneuvers such as “flipping” properties, records show.
And this is the candidate who bragged about inspiring the Occupy Wall Street movement. Hypocrisy alert!

Bill Clinton must be having a lot of fun letting loose with these little daggers into Obama and the Democrats. He would like to keep the designation as the only post-FDR Democrat to win two terms. And he hasn't forgotten all those digs that Obama got in against him and Hillary in the 2008 campaign. Payback is a joy for someone like Clinton.

What's the matter with Bill Maher? Let us count the ways.

Biden said that both his wife, Jill, and Michelle Obama would have had "no chance" in life had it not been for government. Doesn't he have more respect for these women? Does he truly believe that smart women can't succeed without government? There's the liberal mindset right there.

And in another sign of voters' rationality, San Jose and San Diego voters passed measures to reform their government's pension plans. The government employees' unions will take these results to the courts and we'll see if cities are going to be able to save their budgets by stepping back from the calamitous benefits they've promised government employees.

Hans von Spakovsky explains why Eric Holder is wrong on the law when he moved to prevent Florida from removing voters who are not citizens from their registration rolls. Contrary to Holder, Florida is following federal law and Supreme Court precedent. Surprise, surprise that the Holder Justice Department is playing politics with a key swing state's election.

Whatever happens with the Supreme Court and Obamacare, the Court has ruled against the administration already three times this year.
This term alone, the high court has ruled unanimously against the government on religious liberty, criminal procedure and property rights. When the administration can't get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of the law, that's a sign there's something wrong with its constitutional vision.
And as Ilya Shapiro writes today, they're still arguing that the federal government should have unlimited power.
More recently, the Justice Department has been suing states over voter-ID laws. Attorney General Eric Holder makes speeches claiming these laws herald the return of Jim Crow. Never mind that the Supreme Court has found them to satisfy the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, most recently by 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), where plaintiffs claimed that needing a photo-ID placed an undue burden on their right to vote.

The government's arguments across a wide variety of cases would essentially allow Congress and the executive branch to do whatever they wanted without meaningful constitutional restraint. This view is at odds with another unanimous Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States (2011). Bond vindicated a criminal defendant's right to challenge the use of federal power to prosecute her. As Justice Kennedy wrote, "[F]ederalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases, it won't be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don't pass the smell test.

The CBO publishes the lies of Obama's ridiculous claims about how he's been saving money compared to other presidents.

California's casino budgeting and Governor Brown's increasingly bad ideas.

Would any president today offer a prayer over the air waves as FDR did on D-Day?

Bang the bongo slowly.