Michael Barone reaches back to Elihu Root for some good advice.
“About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” So supposedly said Elihu Root, New York lawyer and secretary of war and of state, and U.S. senator from 1909 to 1915.
Today it seems that many liberal “would-be clients” are in desperate need of what Root called “a decent lawyer.”
This explains how the diaspora from blue states has helped Democrats do better in red states, ironically voting for the politicians who would enact the sorts of policies that made their original blue states so desirable to leave.
Noemie Emery looks at the excuses that liberals make for Obama.
The reasons offered for why bad things aren’t his doing fall into three different categories: (1) The system is broken, the country is polarized, and the Republicans have become too insane to deal with; (2) stuff happens, and no one at all can do much about it; and (3) people think that the president ought to be Superman and solve all their problems, which is really expecting too much. As Joshua Keating wrote on July 21 in Slate: “There’s a tendency to judge U.S. foreign policy on the condition of the world at any given moment rather than the success of actual actions taken,” as if the condition and the actions can have no conceivable link.She then goes through each excuse and demonstrates how lame they all are. But these are the sorts of excuses that are trotted out for Democratic presidents and buried away when the president is a Republican.
Bryan Preston details the eight times that Democrats have "used court shenanigans against Republicans they couldn't beat at the ballot box."
William A. Jacobson explains perhaps the worst of these examples of how Democrats drummed up phony charges for something that wasn't even illegal to go after supporters of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. As Jacobson writes, "We are in a dangerous place when prosecutors can identify the target first, and then try to find a crime."
Michelle Nunn refuses to tell Georgians whether or not she'd vote for Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader if she were elected. Should voters really have to buy a pig in a poke? Why won't she tell them? And would it matter if she did? As the Washington Post's Jaime Fuller writes, this is very silly since the vote for leader will be in secret so she can continue to keep her vote secret. And it doesn't matter how she votes; if elected, that takes a vote away from Mitch McConnell which would help Reid get elected. And Harry Reid doesn't seem too worried about her support since his leadership PAC donated $10,000 to Nunn.
How typical. One of the representatives that Obama sent to the Michael Brown funeral is one of his get-out-the-vote operatives. Because nothing says true sympathy in a time of grief like exploiting it for electoral positions.
John Hinderaker points to something I'd been wondering about. Why haven't we heard Officer Wilson's side of what happened with Michael Brown? There have been leaks and comments from his friends, but nothing from either the police department or his lawyer. Usually a lawyer would be out there defending his client and at least hinting that there was another side of the story.
Quin Hilyer notes that two proposals that conservatives have long backed are responsible for greatly reducing Israeli vulnerability from terrorist attacks.
Despite enduring thousands of Hamas rockets in the past ten weeks, the whole of Israel is far safer now than it was a decade ago, and safer than many American cities. Indeed, two initiatives long favored by American conservatives, namely missile defense and a border fence, have made the current unpleasantness with Hamas little more than an unfortunate distraction from the true existential threat, which is Iranian nukes.
Oh, the pain of having to appear in the same place that President Obama will be speaking if you're a Democrat facing a tough reelection campaign.
Well, it looks like we won't be having voting in January for the 2016 nomination. It's cute how every four years they tinker with the calendar to get the supposedly ideal schedule.
Do we really need the federal government to create a database to track hate speech and "misinformation" on Twitter? And who decides what is misinformation?