Who you calling stupid?

I’m not nearly as concerned about the intelligence of the Obama administration, as I am about the lack of intellectual honesty on the right.

The constant tone of shrill and incoherent opposition, based primarily on distortions and lies, does not reflect well on the party. Obama may be down near 50% approval. But outside the deep south, the GOP is well under 20%.

It really makes no sense to claim that Obama is both incompetent and an evil mastermind who will transform the country in mere months. Obviously he is neither. He is a disciplined and patient politician, and he understands the nature and pace of Congress.

But go ahead and convince yourself that we’re all a bunch of idiots – after all, we voted for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin. Certainly that’s evidence of something…

Kaufman smears himself: reverse hate speech?

This is another pathetic example of what PJM is trying to pass off as journalism.

All the “objectionable” material cited was in a public forum, where anyone can log in and share their personal thoughts. Kaufman is calling for the organization to remove comments that he doesn’t like. That’s basically un-American, because in America, we don’t try to muzzle critical voices – we respond with more speech. You can call out the individual forum posters, but trying to tie their posts to the organization would be like trying to tar the GOP based on posts in their forum. Or impeaching PJM based on the comments I make.

Believe me, you do not want to go there.

Republicans don't get "Justice"

If you are searching for social justice in the Constitution, just check the preamble; “Promote the general welfare” is a pretty good analog for “social justice”. And Congress is also empowered to enact taxes for the specific purpose of promoting the general welfare.

It’s really not that difficult a concept.

GOP Nazis

It’s true. Conservatism isn’t like Nazism. But we don’t have a properly conservative party in the USA. We have the GOP…

On to the four elements:

1) Conservatives only want the rich to succeed.

Although the effect of conservatives’ low tax policies always is the same – increased concentration of wealth at the top end of the income scale – the notion of trickle down economics is still maintained as gospel among some conservatives. The unfortunate reality is that economic growth does benefit the wealthy disproportionately when tax rates are not sufficiently progressive, and has led to an erosion in purchasing power for the working poor.

Even more interesting, conservatives equate “success” with economic wealth. The value of public goods is minimized, in order to emphasize the role of business in the economy. Profit and growth become the only measures of success, and the negative effects of both can be ignored as irrelevant. Conservatives believe that free market capitalism achieves the best outcome for all individuals, despite copious evidence that this is not the case.

Conservatives misunderstand success as a personal condition of wealth, when in reality success means much more. Success involves healthy communities, public safety, education, and all the other aspects of a community. None of us can be a success in isolation. An exclusive focus on monetary wealth ignores the value of the environment, the community, the culture and the wider world.

It’s not that conservatives only want the rich to succeed – it is that they use wealth as the primary measure of success.

2) Conservatives hate minorities.

Hating minorities is not central to modern conservatism. Many conservatives are too accepting of racial bias, and opposition to affirmative action is wrongheaded, but that does not mean that conservatives in general hate minorities. The problem is that conservatives tolerate those who hate minorities, and do nothing to counteract their hate.

3) Conservatism was the ideology of Nazis.

Fascism, of course, was the ideology of the Nazis. Conservatism of course has nothing to do with fascism, but as I noted above, the GOP has little to do with conservatism. Conservatism would not permit the abandonment of habeas corpus, or the perpetration of warrantless wiretaps, or a war without express authorization. These are things that are associated with authoritarian regimes, among them the Nazis. Nothing conservative about it, though.

4) Conservatives are fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize.

Conservatives are not fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize. By the same token, fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize are not conservatives, and have unfortunately taken over the GOP. A quick perusal of the party platform is all it takes to see that the fanatical Christians are driving the Republican bus – which may be why things look so apocalyptic for the party at the moment.

No true conservative would be caught opposing equal rights for homosexuals, or permitting the state to interfere in the doctor patient relationship. It is the fanatical Christian fringe that most endangers the GOP and the nation, by being unable to grasp the concept of secular government.

So no, conservatism isn’t like nazism – it has its own set of problems, and an even bigger problem in not having a party. The GOP is no longer compatible with conservatism – and it will be a herculean task to rebuild the party along those lines if that is indeed the path to GOP revival.

Fighting AGW reality is a losing battle

There is no net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels.

The article cited by the author does not call into question the science of AGW – it merely points out the obvious. Yes, temperatures vary over time, and there are cyclical forces at play – but the overall trend is not in question, and the basis for the science is still sound.

It is easy to cherry pick data and pretend that AGW is not happening – it is much more difficult to face the reality that fossil fuels and deforestation are having a global impact that may be irreversible. The loss of biodiversity, and the potential for ecological disaster, are more than sufficient to justify invoking the precautionary principle.

There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels – unless you are making a profit on them.

Will Obama lose support from the left?

I don’t think it is likely that much of Obama’s base will turn on him. Certainly there is a mass of people on the left who will be disappointed if escalation is the way Obama chooses to proceed, but there is a huge difference between Bush and Obama when it comes to war fighting. Obama seems genuinely interested in making the best decision possible, with evidence to support it, and his deliberate and measured process ensures that his base cannot claim he is being reckless.

There will be dissent against whatever choice Obama makes, and there is no way to know going forward if his choice is the best available or not – history does not allow us the luxury of studying hypotheticals.

The claim that 40,000 troops will somehow magically create the change needed in Afghanistan is hopelessly naive. Obama’s pursuit of a workable strategy for victory is the best way forward – precipitous escalation is meaningless without an underlying strategy that can tie together all of the elements necessary for a stable and democratic Afghanistan to emerge from the wreckage of eight years of war.

Given the complete failure of the previous administration to square this circle, Obama’s task is clearly a difficult and thorny challenge – but the best way forward is not intuitively obvious, and the assumptions that underlie the call for a “surge” should be properly challenged and explored. Without a complete and thoughtful policy review, sending additional troops into harm’s way would be a crime – not as great a crime as the invasion of Iraq, but certainly a failure in the proper conduct of war.

Nobel: Bush Bashing?

Bush is not America, and does not represent her values. In fact, the repudiation of Bush is a reaffirmation of American values.

Obama’s prize means more than simply a repudiation of Bush – it is also an endorsement of his broad policy objectives, and the return of America to world leadership.

GOP terrorists denigrating the Nobel Peace Prize is of course not a surprise. Do you fools really believe that everyone else in the world is stupid? Can you not see the horrendous damage inflicted on our nation by the Bush cabal, and the heroic efforts of Obama to reverse this tragedy?

The lack of grace, humility, and comprehension on the right is staggering.

The Power of Deluding Yourself

VDH claims some special insight into why Obama was voted into office, but he is missing a big part of the picture. Some of us actually looked into the policy positions Obama advocated, and preferred them to the alternatives.

My support for Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race, his age, or his charisma. This is, and always has been, about policy. Every time someone mentions race as a reason he was elected, they betray their inner racist monologue. Obama could have been hispanic, white or asian – his race was not why people voted for him.

I want him to achieve his aims, because they are positive prescriptions for American prosperity. The author claims that Obama is getting his payback now – but in reality, Obama is turning the corner right now. By this time next year, health reform will be law, cap and trade will be in force, and jobless numbers will be improving. Obama is currently more popular than he was on the day he won the election – and for all the talk of failure, he is moving forward on the broad agenda that was his platform in the campaign.

I noticed there was no citation for the claim that Obama’s approval is dipping – probably because the latest polls show approval increasing, while disapproval has dropped significantly. Obama’s approval is higher than his share of the vote last November – and as his patient and deliberate approach to governance is vindicated by legislative victories, his numbers will only improve.

The situation in Afghanistan is indeed a sticky wicket, but the goals Obama has laid out are clear.

What VDH is really arguing is that Obama can’t possibly be as intelligent, popular and well-informed as he appears, because he is just a black man who benefitted from affirmative action. This is blatant racism. Nobody believes you anymore when you claim you are not a racist, because you keep demonstrating that this is how you think.

The GOP is drifting farther and farther away from rational discourse and intelligent policy discussions, and toward a racist, xenophobic, religious-right party of limited utility. This article is just more of the same “I hope Obama fails” rhetoric that has been standard issue all year long – no constructive criticism, just a lot of ad hominem attacks on Obama and his supporters, and no policy prescriptions whatsoever.

More proof that the Republican party has no idea how to do anything right.

Glenn Beck is the new GOP

I agree with the author:

In the realm of power dynamics, the former DJ is plutonium.

Beck is indeed radioactive, extremely hazardous - even a little exposure can cause violent and potentially fatal disease.

The left attacks Beck because he is "just a dimwitted freak" - much like Palin and Bush. The right continually offends the sensibilities of intelligent persons by touting these sub-par spokespersons as their new leadership. Beck is not a significant threat to the Democrats - he is really more of a threat to our political discourse. Abandoning reason and logic for showmanship only marginalizes the GOP in the eyes of the critical observer. Yes, the faithful lap it up, and there is great profit in this for Fox - but it does nothing productive for the political process.

I do agree with the author that Beck is a man for his time - he perfectly represents the anti-intellectual, pop-psych perversion that the Republicans have become. The right has much more to fear from Beck and Palin than the left - but the left will keep attacking these two as convenient targets that prevent any other conservative voices from being taken seriously.

Promoting the dimwitted as the future of the GOP, the Republicans have clearly reached a new low in recruitment, while also making progress in presenting honestly the true face of the party. Crazy, but true. Palin and Beck are the best gifts the left could ever hope for.

Health Care Reform Will Pass

The short answer is: yes. Obama has the votes for health care reform, and some sort of comprehensive bill will pass this session. This bill will include some form of a public option, watered-down or not, and will also eliminate many insurance industry practices that kill Americans every day.

The GOP does not have the votes to stop this bill, and have made it clear that they are not willing to compromise or work together to craft this legislation. This is a major miscalculation by the Republican caucus. Health reform will pass, and Obama and the Democrats will get all of the credit - and extra kudos for standing up to the obstructionists.

Pretending that the American people are satisfied with the most expensive, dysfunctional health care system in the developed world is not doing the GOP any favors. After trying to gut social security, it is hilarious to see the right wingers pretending to defend Medicare. Health care reform is good for Medicare, because it will let the government take on patients who are not yet heavy health care consumers, which will help balance the rising costs for older patients.

We have never been closer to comprehensive health care reform - and it will happen before the end of this year. It has the support of the majority in Congress as well as the majority of Americans. The fact that the GOP is not on board is just more evidence that the right is out of touch with voters.

Funny Business

• Jebus, the Republicans are starting to look good. (Oops — I couldn’t find a link for this one.)

Why am I not surprised?

Anger, yes - violence, no

Talk of assassination. Odd intimations that assassins of liberals are themselves liberals. Political anger is one thing, but fomenting political violence, and lying about the source and nature of said violence, is a very low place to go.

In general, it is very easy to tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing violence. Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous.

GOP should abandon Beck

This is good advice, but it will fall mostly on deaf ears at PJM. The right is so devoid of real leadership, it is simply too easy for a shill like Beck to take the reigns. His racist and nonsense-filled rants sound quite reasonable to many of the GOP faithful, and they will gladly follow him over the cliff.

I was amused at the mention of Palin. The claim that she was treated unfairly always makes me laugh out loud. She is not far from Beck in her potential to negatively impact the GOP. Although not as outrageous as Glenn, Sarah is certainly on the fringe, and the longer she remains in the media spotlight, the better off the Democrats will be.

Of course, I don’t expect the denizens of PJM to agree with me – most will froth with incredulity at the idea that their heroes could be so hollow. But then again, this is the fringe of the fringe here.

Calling out the violence on the right

The most stark difference you will see in this case, is that nobody will come to the defense of Pouillon’s murderer.

Considering the outpouring of support on PJM for the killer of Dr. Tiller, this difference is more than sufficient to make clear the contrast in perspectives at play here.

Moreover, the anti-abortion movement has explicitly called for violence against medical providers. No such calls have issued from the pro-choice camp. I think the history of violence against pro-choice physicians speaks for itself.

Blinded by History

The war mongering of Bush was hardly an effective response to the emerging threats facing the USA. Instead of using our resources to promote our national interest, we have become embroiled in ancient tribal and religious conflicts in a region where we have little to gain, and much to lose.

Obama is embarking on a reinvention of America’s international reputation, which is much needed after the punishment inflicted under Bush. At the same time, he is taking practical and realistic steps to push for a realignment in international relations. Rather than the “with us or against us” rhetoric of Bush, Obama is working on the basis of building consensus.

In the long term, the strategy of Obama is the only one that can succeed. Without international cooperation and agreement, the US cannot achieve her long term strategic goals. Extricating our military from Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to take many years, and cost us a great deal more blood and treasure. Inviting more of the same is a fool’s game, and one that Obama is determined not play.

Going it alone is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, as made clear by Bush & Co. While Bush was starting a war in Iraq for his own purposes, he took the eye off of the ball. Afghanistan turned against us, Iraq became a quagmire, and North Korea and Iran both made more progress toward nuclear weapons than under any previous administration.

Given the situation he faces, Obama is taking the right steps to restore American standing in the world, and refocus our military and diplomatic efforts on protecting the vital interests of Americans, rather than corporations. It is a welcome change, and a hopeful one.

Capitalism doesn't kill people - Capitalists do

Just as guns don’t kill people, capitalism doesn’t kill people.

It’s all about how you use it – and unfortunately, humans reliably demonstrate a capacity to kill with guns, as well as with capitalism. Capitalism is a great system in theory – but in practice, it is perhaps the single most destructive force the planet has ever seen. Capitalism may work, but what it accomplishes is not necessarily a good thing.

Kettle, heal thyself

Articles like this are expected at PJM, and actually help to put the lie to the author's conclusions. He readily admits that he has no statistics, no evidence, nothing to back up his assertions - but nonetheless is confident that his conclusions are sound.

One paragraph in particular gave me pause, as it so clearly applies to much of the invective spewed in comment threads:

One of the things I find most disturbing is the stubborn resistance to data that does not consort with a prior and deeply held conviction, the unwillingness to reflect upon one’s own prejudices, assumptions, and ideological stances. I believe it was Jonathan Swift who said that “what a man has not been reasoned into, he will not be reasoned out of.” Was he right? One would like to believe that intellectual curiosity can always be stimulated and that acquired knowledge can have a salutary effect, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

I do hope that my fellows in the comment threads at PJM will take this thought to heart. The emphasis on reason, and on intellectual curiosity, are in complete accord with my own efforts here at PJM. Despite the ongoing ad hominem attacks that persist at PJM, I am confident that there is a cohort of reasonable and intellectually curious readers who appreciate the efforts of folks who bring dissenting views to these pages.

I would have more respect for the author if he had addressed this problem in the rational and intellectually honest manner that he proposes, rather than using the entire article as a platform for his own ad hominem attacks on the left. The author claims to have found "that the great majority of these crude and invidious remarks come from patently left-leaning readers" but can offer nothing more than his own personal impression, no doubt clouded by the ideology. He describes the problem well, while providing a great example, too.

When I read the line "certain sites feature articles, reports, and analyses of contemporary events that, in their content and phrasing, differ little from the productions of the most thoughtless and vitriolic commenters themselves" the first site that came to mind was the one the author is posting on. I want to thank Mr. Solway for putting the lie to his own thesis so elegantly.

Birthers / Truthers

It is true that not all conspiracy theories are created equal, and not all fringe elements are comparable.

In this case, the birther contingent has no evidence, no motive, and no theory – so it would be hard to call them conspiracy theorists. They are simply loony.

The truther contingent, on the other hand, can point to specific documents to support the contention that the Bush administration failed to take even the most basic measures to prevent the attack of 9/11/01, such as the “Bin Laden determined to attack in the US” memo, and the ongoing refusal of the Bush administration to acknowledge or address this threat seriously leading up the attack.

Fundamentally, the difference is very simple. The “birthers” wish to avoid facing the truth, while the “truthers” are interested in discovering it. Obama’s birthplace has no practical impact on the lives of Americans, while the failure of the government to prevent 9/11 has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. I could go into greater detail about the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion, warrantless wiretaps and other unconstitutional adventures – but the bottom line is the same.

One side is worried about a technicality related to eligibility, while the other side is worried about actually protecting Americans from harm. To use your analogy, I don’t mind if Obama “wears his underwear on his head” – I am much more concerned about the crazy uncle that sexually molested detainees, and has tried to bury the evidence and avoid punishment. The Bush administration openly admitted engaging in criminal acts against the people of the USA – the location of Obama’s birth certificate hardly has the same significance.

Nukes on Parade

Nuclear energy is hardly “the only solution”. It is only a viable “solution” if you are willing to deny the inherent problems with nuclear power generation.

There is plenty of work being done on sustainable energy economies. One has to deliberately ignore the available evidence to conclude that nuclear power is the answer.

Solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower can provide plenty of energy, and improvements in efficiency can reduce power requirements substantially. By comparing nuclear with biofuels, you are ignoring all of the truly sustainable technologies that are available now.

Nuclear power is part of the old paradigm of massive central generation. The future does not lie in these types of projects – micro-scale power generation and improvements in efficiency are a much more intelligent way forward. Nuclear facilities simply are not efficient in the long term.

The particular focus here on motor fuel is also misguided, as improvements in electricity storage are likely to render gasoline obsolete before these nuclear plants would pay back the initial capital investment. Moving to distributed generation of electricity through solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower is the way forward – the continued obsession with nuclear power is a relic of the cold war, and serves no useful purpose.

Snowe(d) In?

It looks like the far right and far left can find a little common ground here: Snowe should become a Democrat, because she obviously is no longer welcome in the GOP.

This is similar to what has happened to a large portion of the voting public, who have also become Democrats, as there is no room for them in today's GOP.

PJM tries to be funny - and fails as usual

I’m glad to see that PJM is willing to publish a fake leftist commentary. It goes really well with all the other fake news here.

Lies and the lying pollsters who legitimize them

This poll has already been thoroughly debunked over at 538.

the Investors’ Business Daily poll purporting to show widespread opposition to health care reform among doctors is simply not credible. There are five reasons why:

1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I’m aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points — the highest of any pollster that we tested.

2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?”. Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.

3. As we learned during the Presidential campaign — when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 — the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they’re doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don’t trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you’d think.

4. They say, somewhat ambiguously: “Responses are still coming in.” This is also highly unorthodox. Professional pollsters generally do not report results before the survey period is compete.

5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn’t bother to define the term “practicing physician”, which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.

My advice would be to completely ignore this poll.

PJM is slacking off.

9/12 crowd estimates - more lies from the far right

Everyone who is a professional in counting crowds has provided an estimate of 100,000 persons or less attending this event. All of the estimates you are using were made by people who have no experience or expertise in estimating crowd sizes.

The only reason the size of the crowd matters is because there has been so much duplicity from the TP crowd regarding attendance. The only credible sources are the independent sources, which universally reported attendance of 100,000 or less.

I really don’t think you do yourself any favors by pretending that this gathering was massive – it was large, but it hardly indicates any sort of significant electoral shift. This gathering of fringe elements serves to remind progressives that we must remain vigilant – but overstating the size of the crowd only proves how little the right cares for factual information.

Sarah Palin for President? Seriously? Ok!

Please work hard to keep Sarah on the front page. She is the best gift the left has received in a generation. Could you have her run again in 2016 also? Thanks!

Freeing the BPP

I like how you all defend free speech until it comes to the BPP. How charming.

Can someone name the victim – the person so intimidated by others exercising their right to peaceably assemble that they were unable to cast their ballot?

No?

I didn’t think so. This was never a case the government could win on the merits.

Health Care for All

1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?

2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.

3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.

4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.

5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.

Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.

Right and Wrong on Healthcare

1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?

2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.

3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.

4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.

5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.

Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.

Tea Party Movement - Astroturf on the Mall

Characterizing the TP movement as grassroots is laughable, but surely politically expedient. On the other hand, the right has certainly engaged in direct action in the past. Driven by greed, paranoia and racism, the TP movement clearly is a vehicle for GOP racism and lies be promoted without sullying the Republican brand.

I’ll grant that some protesters are genuine, but the movement itself is not. This is a corporate protest, and calling it grassroots only shows how desperate for relevance the right has become.

Health Care Lies

Here's my point-by-point reply:

1. ObamaCare’s centerpiece, a Medicare-like “public option,” would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance.

Millions of Americans have already lost, or never had, employer-provided health insurance. Moreover, those who lose their employer-provided health insurance will be able to get insurance, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. A "public option" might cause some reduction in employer provided health care, but the figure cited (118 million) from the Lewin Group is absurdly high. Perhaps a consequence of the Lewin Group's status as a wholly-owned arm of the health care industry?

2. Government-run health care would lead to rationing.

Private health care has already led to rationing, but not on a rational basis. Denying care is the primary method of reducing costs practiced by private insurers. Right now, care is rationed based on ability to pay, and the decisions of insurance executives. Increased competition and choice does not preclude a public option, and a public option does not require a reduction in care to reduce costs - just a reduction in the profit motive as the primary driver of health care.

3. ObamaCare would cost a fortune, and we’re already running higher deficits than during the Great Depression.

ObamaCare would "bend the curve" in the long term, and make it possible for health care to survive the retiring boomers who would otherwise break it. We are running higher deficits than ever because the last eight years were a non-stop assault on the US economy and government. It takes a lot of money to repair the kind of damage done by the Bush administration.

Even so, ObamaCare will expand health coverage, reduce health care expenditures, and remove the long-term risk of insolvency in Medicare. Arbitrarily reducing deficits in the midst of a financial crisis is a proven loser.

4. ObamaCare would ruin private insurance.

ObamaCare does not ruin private insurance. It simply gives consumers another choice, and prevents gaps in coverage due to job loss or pre-existing conditions. The "public option" uses government to efficiently cover care for millions of Americans, as is currently done by Medicare. There is no evidence that a public option would reduce the quality of private care - it is much more likely that private competition will motivate improvements in care as private companies work to compete.

5. ObamaCare would encourage people to leave the medical profession.

This is absurd. People do not go into the medical profession as a way to make themselves rich - and if they do, they should not be encouraged. It is much more likely that employment in the health sector would be much higher, because with more people covered by insurance, there would be more people with access to care. There is no reason to believe that improved and expanded insurance coverage would be a deterrent to those interested in practicing medicine.

6. In addition to increasing deficits, ObamaCare would increase overall health costs.

Your "study" shows nothing about the overall costs of health care. You do not address any of the collateral benefits of having health coverage, and do not recognize the impact of demographics on program costs.

In short, you have no evidence. Your supposed evidence simply shows how private insurers can make a bigger profit by denying care to millions of Americans. That's not evidence of anything about overall health costs.

7. Based on Medicare’s track record, ObamaCare’s costs would almost certainly exceed estimates.

ObamaCare could exceed cost estimates by a very large margin and still be much more cost-effective than our current system.

8. ObamaCare would create a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle class.

We already have a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. The rich will always get whatever care they want, but for the middle class health reform would at least preserve access to care that is often jeopardized in our current system. There is again, no evidence that the middle class would suffer worse health under a public system, but plenty of evidence from overseas that public health care is more effective and efficient than our private system.

9. ObamaCare would kill the prospects for real reform.

No real reform has been forthcoming for some time - now is the best chance we will ever have. ObamaCare ends unfair practices that impact the uninsured, and encourages a more vibrant free market in which consumers can shop for value - for the best care, at the best prices. Rather than being excluded from care due to pre-existing conditions, or compelled to join the plan of an employer, under ObamaCare the choice would be restored to each of us.

ObamaCare is real reform.

10. The centralization of power in Washington saps the strength of our citizenry and slowly deprives us of liberty.

This is just a tag line to get folks interested in your "think-tank". Liberty without life is not very valuable - health care reform serves the general welfare, very much in keeping with the spirit of the founders. ObamaCare is about balancing the strength of the citizenry against the strength of private interests that currently are not serving the public interest.

Corporations have an obligation to be good citizens - if they cannot do so voluntarily, it is the place of government to set them straight. We the People grant the corporate charter, and have every right to revoke it.

We need ObamaCare.

The Density of Palin: Black Hole of Media Intelligence

I’m waiting for Palin to present her alternative health care reform plan.

But I’m not holding my breath.

She’s got nothing to offer here. I don’t see anyone flummoxed, just a big chunk of the GOP that is brain-dead and/or brain-washed into buying whatever this woman has for sale.
“Death panels” are not part of this legislation, and are nothing but an inflammatory rhetorical device without basis in fact – a definition that fits Palin herself as well.

ACLU: Hypocrisy?

The ACLU defends the rights of the people, not the rights of government functionaries. There is nothing selective about the support for civil liberties offered by the ACLU.

Detainees who have had their rights denied need the ACLU to help defend their rights under the constitution. Government agents already have the power of the government behind them – there is no need for the ACLU to defend them, because they are authorized agents of the state, and are not being prevented from exercising their civil liberties.

The ACLU is currently working on collecting information on the torture and illegal detention of persons under CIA and other programs. The persistent efforts of the ACLU have helped to make clear the depth and extent of illegal activity perpetrated by the previous administration, and may well lead to prosecution of administration apologists who issued legal opinions to authorize plainly unconstitutional activities.

Waste is not the absence of profit

Without government intervention in the health care market, most Americans would see no benefit from the advances in medical technology over the past fifty years. There is plenty of waste in a private market, but not all of this waste is in the form of money. Human potential is also wasted in the private system, that does not value human beings, but instead protects merely their money.

I want an option for medical coverage that doesn’t line the pockets of these folks, thanks.

Rationing in Oregon? Good

Without the public option, rationing is worse. To call the situation in Oregon as nightmare is to misunderstand the nature and extent of the issues with our health care system. Denial of care is much more common and insidious when practiced for profit. I’d take Oregon’s system over a purely private system any day.

GOP Pretending to be Peaceful

How large is the audience that believes this garbage? This Godwin-baiting meme of Hitler as a leftist is would be merely silly if it were not so sinister.

Claiming that the left is the source of political violence does not make it so. A quick review of history reveals the ignorance of this assertion. People are not motivated to violence by democratic collectivists. They are motivated to violence by authoritarian leaders who harness nationalistic and religious memes to further their own political power.

The characterization of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro as somehow representing democratic socialism only demonstrates the ignorance of the author.

Science is fine. What's wrong with the GOP?

AGW deniers generally share a common financial interest in promoting their views. That’s why I was not surprised that the first “reference” in the article is to a commercial outlet for Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is a Professor of Mining Geology with a background in the mining industry. His expertise in climate science is questionable, to be generous – his financial and career interests are transparent.

Although his book has proven popular with a certain segment of the public, it has been widely panned in the scientific community, simply because the “science” content is nothing but a series of cherry-picked primary sources, selected without regard for accuracy or veracity.

The “technological revolution” that is needed to halt global warming is not “unimaginable” except to those whose imaginations have ceased to function. Without engaging in the work to bring about this revolution, we are doomed to a future of dwindling fossil fuel resources, ongoing climate disruption, and eventually a very nasty and rapid rise in sea level worldwide due to continued carbon emissions.

There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place. Wholesale rejection of mainstream scientific thought (”I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming.”) is one of the sure signs of late-stage global warming denial.

If the GOP continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW, and relies on the pseudo-scientists of the world for support, it truly is one of the worst times for science. Peer-review and broad consensus are the basis of scientific knowledge, and AGW deniers fail miserably on both counts. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that refutes the well-documented long-term warming that has been observed since the beginning of scientific measurements, and the broad consensus supports theories that recognize the impact of human activity on the global environment.

It is the best of times, in the sense that science can identify and propose remedies for the damage that humans do to their environment, and technology provides the tools to made these changes. It is only the political mechanism that is paralyzed by oligarchy. But even the biggest players in the fossil fuel game can see the their future will be very different. It is not possible to deny the science forever, as the consequences of warming are becoming more obvious every year.

Abortion is health care! PJM Exclusive!

It’s pretty clear the author does not understand the principles he espouses.

Government-owned health care will place bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options. This is wrong. Health care decisions must be made by you and your doctor.

If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?

It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.

Americans who are morally opposed to abortion should not have to pay for abortions with their tax dollars against their will.

I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.

Banning Burqas is Bad

So now, instead of a war on terror, we should start a war on Islamic fashion?

Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?

This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.

I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.

Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.

Why Palin Will Fail - Jennifer Rubin is Right (for once)

The central message is that serious times require serious candidates.

I couldn’t agree more.

Surprised?

Sarah Palin is a gift that keeps on giving for the left. Watching frantic & confused GOP response is quite entertaining. She has 0 chance of winning a national election, but it will be great sport to watch her cripple the GOP for a generation.

A party with so little remaining credibility shows that even when you may think you have reached the bottom of the barrel, somebody will find a way to keep digging. I hope Palin remains prominent - nothing but a bonus for the Dems.

Party on!

Fundamentalism: Iran v. USA

Apparently Frank F did not understand what Frank S wrote. Let me summarize.

Iran is one example of what can happen when religious conservatives control the political landscape. The author was formerly part of an American Christian movement with aims very similar to those of the Iranian Muslims currently ruling that country.

Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement - all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.

Frank Schaeffer provides a unique insiders perspective into the motives and tactics of the fringe elements that promote theocracy in the USA. Oppressive religion is offensive to American values, whether Christian or any other faith.

The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary - it is real, and a very serious threat to the Republic. Our secular government is our greatest innovation, and the basic reason that the American system has been so successful, and so widely emulated. Continued vigilance is required to protect and defend our Constitution from being perverted in the service of religion.

Tea Party Cancellation

This is just a simple case of a business owner defending his interests. Simon apparently has a legal right to refuse access to this property, and that right trumps the protest.

The Tea Party should be held on property that belongs to the public. The irony would only be too delicious.

Marriage for Procreation, or Recreation?

Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.

There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.

Union Renaissance?

I think it’s about time that workers got their right to organize back.

When an employer can refuse to certify a union, regardless of the workers’ decision, that’s a failure of democracy.

Card check is one thing that could very much improve the lives of lower income workers, who have been losing ground for decades now. If the Democrats can make it happen, they deserve their rewards.

Hate Speech and Conservative Vigilantism

The big problem is that so much of what passes for political discourse now depends on hyperbole. “Baby Killer” would be the recent pertinent example. Talking points and language are important.

The choice to use inflammatory, violent and hateful imagery is a conscious one, with predictable outcomes. It is possible to have civil discourse without so much frothing at the mouth, or at least without the deliberate provocation.

Violence in the service of religion or politics is a very dangerous tool. When in the service of both, it is decidedly deadly. I don’t see this dynamic as a significant part of the left wing - this violence is a conservative and reactionary response to liberal society.

So long as belief in imaginary omnipotents continues, the deranged adherents of such ideologies are likely to find cause to spread the word by the sword. The only long term solution is secular government and education.

Bumpy road for card check?

I don’t see this as any big difficulty for Democrats. Passing some version of card check is a “pro worker” bona fide that is not likely to be a net loser for the Democrats. Labor has supported the left through a long stretch of GOP governance, and they will extract a reward of some kind. Whether card check and arbitration survive in the final bill is hard to say - but labor will get a bill.

There may be some temporary setbacks in isolated elections, but success on this issue is not likely to bite the left very hard. Opposition to unions is weak because of a depressed labor market and faltering economy. Job security and stable wages are starting to look a lot more attractive to the right-to-work folks that are now standing in the unemployment line.

Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed before the end of August, and big labor will probably get their bill in time for Thanksgiving. It will be a merry xmas for the Dems.

Media Bias? Oh, yes there is...

There is not a double standard, despite continued protests from the fringe such as this.

The murder of Doctor Tiller was political terror, committed by a known activist from the Pro-life movement. Doctor Tiller himself was, as you say “notorious” - in other words, a public figure. His killing was an assassination. That’s a far cry from the essentially random violence against non-specific military recruiters. Tiller was living under threat - the recruiters not so much.

One act was, as Obama stated, heinous - attacking a well known advocate for women’s rights, a peaceful physician, who had been attacked before, at his church, with the specific intent of stopping his medical care for patients. The other was senseless - attacking military recruiters without a clear reason or a cause.

I understand it is fun to claim media bias in this type of situation - but our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military deaths at home are an extension of the same conflict. Doctor Tiller’s death is significantly more newsworthy, and rightly so.

The only double standard here is the presumption that all Muslims deserve to be tarred with the broad brush of terrorism, while Christians who engage in violence are qualified as “extremist”. Some consistency on this point would be welcome. If Long’s killer is a “follower of Allah”, isn’t Roeder a “follower of Christ”? References made in this article to Roeder’s religion are qualified, but Long’s [killer's] religion is not accorded the same respect. Why the double standard?

Terrorism is no less real when it is perpetrated by the right wing at home. Make no mistake - both acts of violence are the result of fundamentalist religious extremism, perpetrated by followers of a jealous “God”. Whether they carry a cross or a crescent matters not to the victims.

Tiller Murder is Not Fiction

The pattern is pretty clear. Religious fanatics, whether Taliban or Born-again, appear to be losing the long-term cultural battle. Rather than try to adapt to a changing world, the response of the religious fanatic is to lash out in violence against the “other”.

Women’s rights, freedom of speech and thought, and other “liberal” values are simply not compatible with the backwards thinking of right wing zealots.

Dr. Tiller - killed in cold blood

Tiller spent his life selflessly and heroically assisting women who faced difficult circumstances. His killer, and those who pretend this murder was justified, are not citizens. They are terrorists. Tiller saved the lives of countless young women, and is a hero.

Go ahead and celebrate - it makes it easier to see who here is truly free of moral qualms. This peaceful non-violent physician was shot to death in his church. Your approval reveals that Christianity is on the same path as Islam.

We are a nation of laws, but without brave men like Dr. Tiller, the law fails us.

California Supremes Rule on Prop 8

The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.

The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.

The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.

The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.

The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.

Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.

Economic justice is still justice

Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.

Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.

Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.

If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.

It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.

Stopping Sotomayor?

I hope the GOP does try to stop this nomination. It would be a boon for the Democrats. There is no cogent argument to deny Sotomayor’s appointment, as she is much more moderate than the GOP’s recent appointments. An attempt to attack this appointment would demonstrate the bankruptcy of the GOP, and make 2010 much more attractive for the Democrats.

If the GOP is smart, they will let her go without too much fuss, and save their ammunition for a fight that can be won, or at least one that does not involve repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. The next nominee will probably be much further to the left, and with a much more forceful legal personality. If the GOP objects here when there is no reason, they will be the party that cried wolf, and future filibusters will be doomed to fail.

Obama may get more SCOTUS appointments than any president in decades - it should be fun to watch.

Sotomayor's race

Sotomayor came from a single-parent household, and grew up in the projects, yet she applied herself and achieved in academia and beyond. There is little doubt that her perspective on the challenges faced by average Americans is somewhat more informed than the previous two justices appointed to the court. Sotomayor was appointed by GHW Bush, and has been a moderate and restrained judge throughout her tenure on the bench. There is no reason to suppose that her life experience makes her a sexist - and certainly not a raving one. There is good reason to believe that she is familiar with facets of the human condition that the other justices may not be.

GOP retrenching

Colin Powell represents what the Republican Party could have been if it had stuck to the rule of law and properly administered the government. That opportunity was wasted, but driving him from the party is nothing but a gift to the left. He was one of the few principled and respected Republicans left - that’s why he could not endorse McCain-Palin.

Independents are the only way to win elections - if even Colin Powell cannot be accorded a conscience, then woe be to the party. It will indeed be a long road home.

GOP not entertaining enough? That's laughable...

Apparently some folks here are too close to the comedy to see that the GOP itself has become an incredibly "entertaining" organization. I don't think this is the big problem that the GOP needs to address - as many other posters noted, there is lots of entertainment being produced with a right-wing perspective.

What is lacking is any principled opposition or constructive alternative to the Democratic agenda. The GOP is not losing in virtually all demographic groups because of a lack of entertainment value. It is losing because it does not speak to the very real concerns of the citizens of the USA.

The closing paragraph of this column encapsulates the GOP confusion:

If conservatives want to win this battle, they need to put more energy into creating entertainment that strikes a responsive chord with the majority of Americans who are “sick of politics” because they don’t see how government and public policy matter to their lives. I believe that a majority of Americans, if they get a chance to see both sides of the argument presented in a way that entertains them, will come over to the conservative side in a decisive way. But conservatives have to make the effort. Right now, the left is winning the battle because they are creating entertainment — and the other side is just boring them.

Americans are "sick of politics", but not because they don't see how government and public policy matter - in fact, you have this one exactly backwards. People are sick of politics because they see precious little attention payed to governance and public policy, and far too much energy spent on divisive personal politics. A majority of Americans, when given the opportunity, have already demonstrated no desire to "come over to the conservative side in a decisive way". It is not because they are bored with the GOP. It is because the GOP has willfully and repeatedly failed to address the very real imperative to govern and manage public policy in keeping with the welfare of our nation.

Jon Stewart is not a news source for the youth of the USA solely because his show is entertaining. His show is also informative and insightful when it comes to the major policy issues of the day. The GOP has no answer to an honest debate on the issues. Focusing on the superficial has been the big problem, and will continue to be the problem, so long as the GOP fails to recognize political reality and address the very real concerns of voters.

Barking Wingnut - Jennifer Rubin

Given the complete lack of competence demonstrated by the previous administration, I am quite delighted and satisfied at the improvement that Obama represents.

Perhaps there is a competence gap between his campaign skills and his governance skills. With practice, his campaign skills proved to be stronger than anyone expected. I suspect his governance skills will likewise exceed the expectations of most observers.

Obama has taken deliberate and pragmatic action to implement his agenda, and has shown wisdom, flexibility and charm in the process. There will be compromises and setbacks, and there will be reversals and failures. This is not a surprise. Regardless, Obama will continue to advance his agenda, and will adapt and respond intelligently to the challenges he faces.

I would note that impugning Obama's competence is a pretty funny gambit coming from Jennifer Rubin. At least, if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

Levity on Torture

Pardon the levity. True torture is, in fact, a serious issue. In the few instances where torture was committed — Abu Ghraib, for instance — the United States was correct in punishing the culprits. But that was an exercise of individual juvenility and cruelty, not official, state-sanctioned intelligence gathering of high-value targets.

This paragraph leads me to believe that you have not familiarized yourself with the nature of the activities carried out under Bush. The documents that are publicly available clearly show that torture was an exercise of official, state-sanctioned power, in direct violation and contravention of the law. Torture was used with official approval from the highest levels of the government, despite valid objections that it was illegal. True torture is a serious issue, and torture with direct approval from government agents demands punishment for the culprits.

We will never have a mature national discourse regarding proper interrogation and what does and does not constitute torture until we can differentiate between the two, embrace the “slippery slope” dilemmas as necessary points of contention, and move past the slanderous pastime of political posturing.

There is not a debate about what constitutes proper interrogation, and what constitutes torture. These are well established categories, which the Bush administration knowingly and wantonly violated. Claiming that the techniques are not torture is simply ex post facto justification for illegal activity. There may be some debate about the details, but there is clear evidence that torture was used under direct authorization from the Executive, and the government must be held accountable for this activity.

Tea Parties - Back to the Dark Ages?

The consequences are predictable and could be catastrophic: a collapse of faith in the leadership classes, a massive anti-intellectual uprising, the beginnings of which we may be already witnessing.

Now I understand the Tea Party movement. It is simply the advocacy movement for a return to the Dark Ages. Thanks for making that crystal clear!

Bureaucrats from here to eternity...

In the near future, a nameless bureaucrat may determine what kind of medical treatment you receive.

I hate to be the one to tell you this: they already do. They work at the HMO.

Why should I prefer a bureaucrat with a profit motive, rather than one with a public health motive?

That's the question I want a clear answer to.

Dramatic Licenses for Drivers

Driving for efficiency is really not difficult, but where are the “cars that people want to buy?” All I see is Jazz giving a trip report on his tour of Manhattan.

Hyper-milers have been refining the techniques of fuel efficiency for some time, starting with the very basic things you have noted, and rising to fairings and tailpipe modifications, along with computer tweaks and other more involved modifications.

Still, I don’t see much evidence here that this was an “Eco-Friendly Auto Show”…

Debating the Bottom Line in Health Care

The bottom line in the health care debate is that America collectively spends too much money on health care, and does not get the best care possible. A large portion of the public has not been served by the current market in health insurance, and one would expect this problem to continue under any plan that does not mandate universal coverage. Depending on employers (and hence employment) to secure health coverage is a poor model for health coverage, and it is past time that cradle to grave coverage be part of every American’s birthright. Our health system is broken, and the market is not going to fix it.

Tea Party Fever

I still don’t see any clear description of what the Tea Parties represent aside from a protest against government taxation. Meeting on tax day and using the tea party metaphor make that connection pretty clear.

Obama & Co. can’t really be faulted for spending - it is exactly what they promised to do. What the Tea Parties seem to me to represent is a frustrated fringe of the GOP that is politically disenfranchised and unable to contemplate cooperation with Obama.

Tea Parties apparently have been all about tax cuts for the rich and cutting government spending on social programs. These are not popular policies with voters. I encourage the Tea Party movement as a way to expose the shallow, naive and incomplete policy program that the GOP has been flogging since 1980.

A Tempest in a Teacup

I’m not sure where Jennifer learned the definition of “massive”. This outpouring was anything but. Take Columbus, OH for example. 7,000 show for the Tea Party - but 60,000 showed up for an Obama rally in November. The Tea Party attendees were even outnumbered by McCain turnout (10,000), which was never termed “massive”.

This was a modest protest, over-hyped and overplayed in the media, and truly nothing to get excited about unless you are part of the 24-hour news cycle.

How Dangerous is the Truth?

I’m sure you would love to have history and culture white-washed for your consumption, with no critical perspective on any aspect of our nation. What you call “revisionist” culture is really just a diversity of views being represented. Picking on the perspectives you don’t like is fine, but calling them “revisionist” and “poison” is just hyperbole.

There is an equally troubling trend to pretend that America can do no wrong, and should not be subject to criticism. This is much more troubling to me than the idea of a play or movie that calls into question American actions.

As Socrates might say, the unexamined life is not worth living. Culture is a big part of how we examine the life of our nation. “Revisionist” or not, examining our history with a critical eye is an important part of helping America fulfill her promise.

Tea Party Pooper

Have fun at the “Forth of July” event. I’m glad to see people being politically active, but not expecting these events to make any significant impact. Idaho is a very reliable state for Republicans that is moving slowly toward supporting Democrats as demographics change.

What strikes me as rather silly is pretending that there is some similarity to the original Tea Party in Boston. There is no taxation without representation to object to here, and the tax rates for most Americans have just been cut. The lack of a focus for these events is very clear - there are many different agendas represented, and the only common theme is that the GOP is out of power.

Unless the GOP can articulate a common theme, a central message, or at least a general idea of where they want to take America, there will be no impact on electoral politics from these Tea Parties.

Scalia the Homophobe

Scalia is a homophobe. How is it cowardly to call out a Supreme Court justice for doing harm to our Republic?

Scalia has demonstrated that he is not an impartial arbiter of the law:

In a dissent in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down an anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional, Scalia said the Court’s majority “signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Clearly Scalia believes that the government should restrict the rights of homosexuals. This is not the position of a person who understands the proper role of government in a Constitutional Republic.

Attacking Frank may be all the rage these days, but in this instance, Barney has the formula right. Scalia needs to be constantly shown for the hateful and idiotic jurist that he is. His decisions are typically poorly reasoned, with tortured justifications being the norm. Since impeachment is a political quagmire, shaming the justice is the most practical way to show distaste for the contempt in which he holds his fellow citizens.

True Christians?

It’s nice to see a Christian who understands that followers of Jesus have strayed from the path, and wants to correct the error.

Penny Pinching at the Pentagon

Ditching the F-22 to get moving on the F-35 is a prudent move. Reducing the explosion in Pentagon spending is necessary and Obama’s plan appears to do a very good job of setting priorities.

Wingnut Ghetto

I’ve seen many different means and methods for organizing a bookstore. Why continue to shop at a bookstore that you believe is racist?

I’m amused that you are blaming the left for the labels applied to books. It wasn’t so long ago that similar labels were being applied to people by law, with the full support of the GOP.

And isn’t the right of the bookstore owner to use whatever categories they choose?

Individualism and the GOP

What many on the right fail to recognize, is that Obama is correct in his criticism of the USA, and that blindly attacking him for admitting the obvious only makes it clear that you don’t understand how America can overcome our faults.

This is not about Obama’s “ego” - it is about America’s ego.

I also disagree with the assertion that Conservatives shy away from mass movements. Conservatives are by and large members of organized religious groups, which provide a built-in social peer group. The true individualists are on the fringes of the left and right, fighting for libertarian and anarchist values. Conservatives are economic individualists, but far too many have become collectivist on social issues, in hopes of legislating their religious beliefs.

Conservatives simply ignore the massive amount of work required to maintain a grassroots movement, and therefore will continue to go without. Obama did the work, and is reaping the fruit of his labor. Best community organizer ever?

Spain Prosecuting the USA

It’s sad that the Spanish are calling out the USA for failing to keep our own house clean. I really think the best way to preclude such action is to prosecute these persons domestically. Ensure a fair trial, and the internationals can be turned away - “Double Jeopardy” and all that. Hiding under the bed only can take you so far.

Elizabeth Scalia miffed at Notre Dame

Powers and principalities have always held human life cheap, and throughout history the Catholic Church has passionately, correctly, and consistently preached on the sanctity of life, at every stage.

If only this statement were true. The Catholic Church has passionately, ignorantly and consistently preached the sanctity of Catholic lives - and has repeatedly shown contempt for any other belief system. Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has been the friend of the powers and principalities that have held human life cheap, and has asked only for the privilege of claiming the souls they have dispatched.

Obama should briefly and clearly state his position on the fundamental right to privacy, and the fundamental right to control of one’s own body. Catholics are entitled to their position on abortion - but our government was instituted in part to prevent them from making their position mandatory. Our nation was founded on freedom from such coercive government action.

Abortion is part of a fundamental right of all persons to control their own bodies. The Catholic Church has no right, and no moral standing, to change this.

Obama an "Evil Commie"?

I see a lot of paranoia here, but not much substance. What, precisely, has Obama done to indicate authoritarian tendencies? So far as I see, he is following well-established market principles in his efforts to prevent the collapse of capitalism.

All the over-the-top analogies only make Obama look more reasonable. Comparing Obama to Stalin is just more of the same absurd rhetoric that has become SOP on the right. So much for reasoned debate - let’s just demonize. It’s so much easier than actually crafting solutions. Right?

Bill Siegel on "Free Stuff"

Bill,

You yourself are contributing to the “free stuff” mentality. Next time, make me pay for your article….

Blowing (Coal) Smoke on Energy

Creating any incentive to further pollute the environment with fossil fuel consumption is a short sighted and inefficient use of human and material capital.

There is no advantage to this technology unless one ignores all of the externalized costs associated with consuming coal.

Promoting and advancing dead-end “solutions” is, unfortunately, what we have come to expect from the polluting industries.

Bill Whittle Please Fly Away

Please take Bill’s advice. If you are a rich person who thinks that paying 2% more in taxes is so burdensome that the advantages of living as an American cannot justify the cost - by all means, move. Your greed and selfishness are not in demand here.

Obama's European Debut

President Obama inherited a solo fight with the Taliban, massive federal deficits and debt, failed policies on Iran and North Korea, the neanderthal war, past terrible policies and unrestrained carbon emissions.

Obama’s ‘organizing of the world’ has not yet begun - this trip was simply laying the groundwork and feeling out his fellow leaders to see who is ready to tackle the problems facing the world.

Now Obama has more of the information he needs to formulate a unified strategy to conclude our row with the Taliban, rein in federal deficits, reduce the threat from rogue states, end the neanderthal war and move forward to address climate change and the rule of law. He will be able to lead the world by example and motivation, a nice change from the bravado and hypocrisy of the last administration. This is the change that we need.

The Truth Hurts

Singling out Islam seems a bit short-sighted. Why not address the lies and omissions in our history texts regarding all religious traditions? Certainly the ‘whitewashing’ of Islam can’t be any more misleading than the portrayal of Christian religions in most texts.

It is true that misinformation is harmful to our ability to properly address the world. But we should not allow ourselves to be persuaded that Islam is uniquely misrepresented. It is true that Islam has been spread by the sword - but it is hardly unique in this regard. Christianity has been promulgated using the very same strategies of conquest - and any historical treatment that portrays Islam as a violent, expansionist faith should not omit the same truths as they relate to the Christian tradition.

Iowa court okays gays

How is this an attack on traditional marriage? I haven’t seen anyone protesting the traditional marriage rights of mixed gender couples, or seen any indication that this ruling would impact these rights.

What is really happening is that equal protection is being properly understood to protect the rights of minority populations against the tyranny of the majority - exactly what our Constitution is supposed to do. Eventually this understanding will be adopted by the SCOTUS, and same-gender couples will no longer be denied the rights afforded their mixed-gender cohorts.

What really galls is the attempt to frame this issue as an attack on “traditional marriage”. It is no such thing. What really is going on is a pre-emptive war on the rights of a persecuted minority, and the judicial system is rightly rejecting such arguments as unconstitutional.

Marriage as a sacred union is not at issue here - marriage as a legal union is what has been denied to same-gender couples. The Iowa court is correct to recognize this distinction, and has ruled appropriately. Their unanimous decision speaks clearly to the unsupportable assertions of homophobic activists.

The bottom line if you don’t approve of gay marriage? Don’t have one.

Closing Gitmo

Unfortunately some detainees can’t be deported to their home country because of the threat of persecution. My personal thought is that any detainee that cannot be found guilty in a court of law should be granted political asylum in the US - the nature of their extended detention could make any deportation problematic.

Despite the prohibition on bringing trained fighters into the USA, without proving their guilt on criminal charges, there is no basis to assert that they should not be granted asylum. The failure in this case would be in arresting and detaining individuals without having sufficient evidence to justify their detention.

Social Security: GOP profiteers seek insolvency

Social Security can be made solvent forever with some simple adjustments. Remove the ceiling on payroll taxes and means test the benefits, and the program is self-funding. It’s not rocket science - just math. Unfortunately math has never been the strong suit of the GOP.

Klavan cracks me up...

Rush is an entertainer. His show is hilarious. As long as you don’t believe a word of it - his show is a laugh riot.

Thanks for a laugh. Next time please be more polite.

Klavan’s challenge was offered with insults and disrespect, proving his argument on the tone of discourse hollow.

I’ve listened to Rush with an open mind plenty of times, and the results are predictable. Limbaugh inevitably provides poorly reasoned arguments that are suitable as comedy, while offending the intelligence of anyone who would attempt to take him seriously.

Rush is no more than a popular entertainer. That he happens to promote hateful ideas is unfortunate - that he has an audience of millions that take his word as gospel is tragic. That Klavan considers him a good representative of Conservatism is just sad.

From Russia with Love

After Bush provided Russia a complete pass to wage war against their citizens and neighbors, Obama must be careful and deliberate while building the foundation for future criticism. Russia no longer takes us seriously, because for the past eight years, we have not been worthy of their respect, and barely worthy of their disdain.

Obama is a different kind of leader, who will not judge Russia so generously as Bush - and will take the time and effort to make sure we have leverage before acting.

NY-20: GOP on the mend?

Certainly the GOP will do better by focusing on Obama, rather than trying to run on the (dismal) GOP record of the past eight years. But to portray this dead-heat as representing an opening for Republicans is rather optimistic.

Statistically, NY-20 is about 2% more Republican than the average nationwide. Tedisco is also a well known and respected politician in the state, relatively speaking, while his opponent was a complete unknown. Tedisco should have blown Murphy out of the water - the fact that a completely unknown Democrat could pull even with a prominent and long-serving GOP representative, and possibly end up taking the seat, does not speak well to GOP prospects.

This may not have been a “safe” seat for the GOP - but if this thesis on GOP openings is true, it should not have been this easy for the Democrats to compete.

Babies and Bathwater

Violence against women is wrong, regardless of who perpetrates the violence, and regardless of their religious convictions.

Focusing on the religion of the perpetrators is a distraction from the fundamental struggle against all violence.

A misunderstanding of the “cycle of violence” reveals a lack of insight into the current plight of women in the world.

What is most disturbing is a pile on with others in attacking a religious tradition, rather than recognizing the importance of divorcing religion from violence.

A universal doctrine of women’s rights does not require a blanket condemnation of religion.

Congress Doesn't use a Secret Ballot

It sounds to me like Specter needs a little tweak to the arbitration provisions to get on board EFCA. That may not be necessary for passage, but if it is, I would not be surprised to see such a compromise happen.

There are many ways to skin this cat.

There is much more to protecting workers than secret ballots in union drives. EFCA is designed to somewhat level a playing field that has been demonstrably tilted against labor. Bringing back card check is not the end of protection for workers - it is the beginning.

Of course, the whole idea behind all attacks on EFCA is to scare workers into submitting to management’s desires, while ignoring their own interests. Fear is the enemy of freedom.

Pressing Obama

It’s true that Obama is facing more criticism now than during the campaign - that’s only natural, as now he is making real policy. However, the premise of this column is deeply flawed. The assumption that there was some special treatment afforded Obama by the media during the campaign is simply false.

The press has been independent the whole time - it’s sour grapes to claim otherwise.

Nobody expects a President to be perfect.

The Devil and Private Health Insurers

The health insurance industry sold its soul to the devil a long time ago. Any industry that extracts outrageous profits from the suffering of others has clearly made a faustian bargain.

There really is nothing to fear from universal coverage. The most likely scenario is that all Americans will be guaranteed a basic level of health coverage, and will have the option to purchase any supplemental coverage on the free market.

Reducing the costs of health care while ensuring coverage for all is a very good idea for our economy and the health of our people. No other advanced economy allows so many to go without health care coverage, or wastes as much money as the US does on health care.

Even employers are beginning to see that the current system is broken, and calling for universal and portable coverage. Nobody benefits from our current system except for the insurance companies that inflate the cost of health care. The poor, the jobless, and the youth of our nation have been victimized for far too long.

Sarcasm on Obama

Quite the entertaining piece. One of the better PJM blogs I have seen.

The dark ages of being ruled by a thuggish tyrant are now behind America.

So true!

To them, meeting Obama must be like encountering Jesus riding a dinosaur — both reassuring and intimidating at the same time.

That’s just a great image.

Of course the unrefined Bush would make a big deal of meeting foreign leaders; to that simpleton, it must have been like being visited by advanced aliens.

Sounds about right.

After eight years of the caveman Bush screaming gibberish at Iran and shaking a rock at them threateningly, it is natural that Iran is still quite easily startled.

Indeed. Glad to be done with that.

They need to know that if Obama’s actions seem stupid or insulting to them, it’s only because they are not yet able to understand his splendor.

You tell ‘em Frank. You might even get through to some folks on PJM if you keep it up…

After eight years of the GOP screwing up anything in sight, I think it’s fair to give Obama at least four to make a significant correction. He never claimed that we would leave Iraq immediately, or close Guantanamo overnight, or that the P Act would be repealed forthwith.

Yes, big business is getting some investment from the feds, but it’s likely that higher taxes will recoup the largesse in time.

As far as being racists, it is true that many American still are - but thankfully the racists are a dying breed. Youngsters are growing increasingly “color-blind” - as evidenced by Obama’s landslide among younger voters. Unfortunately institutionalized racism is something that takes generations to recover from, and our road to redemption as a nation will take the better part of this century at least.

I don’t mind if you want to give Obama a hard time, but when you try to blame him for the GOP’s legacy of failure, your duplicity is obvious.

Rush to Judgement

Obama has the opportunity to revive the economy and implement his agenda. He would be foolish not to - and fellow Democrats are fools if they stand in his way. The American public supports Obama’s agenda. There is plenty of good news for the average citizen in Obama’s proposals. Health care, cap and trade and tax reform are all likely to improve the economy in the long term, while action on banks, mortgages and energy will help get the economy moving again. Most Americans understand that Bush handed Obama the keys to a country with a damaged economy, and that sorting out the mess left by the GOP will take some time.

Undoubtedly Obama understands that there is a window of opportunity that must be taken advantage of before it closes, and is moving rapidly to achieve as much as possible while the political tide is high. Obama can afford to pay less attention to electoral politics because the Democrats have majorities in both houses that are a lot safer than any in recent memory.

If you really think the Democrats are going to line up to pillory Obama, you are living in your own fantasy. The GOP can’t hope to win unless it can offer a reasonable platform to the nation. Good luck with that.

You can expect health care reform to come to a vote this year. Tax reform will be ongoing, with broad relief now, and some focused increases on upper-quintile earners coming over the next four years. Cap and trade is likely to be put to a vote before 2010 as well.

So you can expect reduced health care costs, a more progressive tax code, and a more sustainable tax and energy policy to be in force before the end of Obama’s first term. The economy is likely to recover during this same time frame, and banking and mortgage reforms will stabilize the housing market once unemployment levels off.

A cleaner and greener planet for your kids is just a bonus.

“Cap and Trade” will transform the economy, as it is intended to.

What all the GOP pundits fail to realize is that carbon credits can be bought by environmentalists, too. Once all the credits have been purchased and put out of service, our economy will no longer rely on massive subsidy of polluting industries.

It’s time to change to sustainable living - hopefully we can.

GOP confusion

Steele is right on abortion, and he was right about Rush. For crying out loud, he’s only been in office 6 weeks, and is doing his best to get the GOP back on track, but if the party is so backwards that it denies reality, I suppose his days are numbered.

Abortion is a choice - that’s the law. Rush’s show is ugly - that’s the reality.

Still, it sure is fun to watch the sparks fly…

'Believe in God or Die'???

The latest American Religious Identification Survey shows that the number of those who believe in no religion at all has almost doubled in the last 18 years, rising from 8 percent to 15 percent since 1990.

Great news for Bill Maher. For the rest of us: worrying evidence of the slow decline of the best and freest culture the earth has ever known.

I think you overestimate the importance of religion to the best and freest culture the earth has ever known. Freedom is exactly what is on the rise here.

This idea—the idea of religion as a human evil—strikes me as very strange given the, you know, facts.

Really? So the fact that religious belief has repeatedly led to wars and intense human suffering doesn’t strike you as even a little evil?

None of this is proof of the existence of God, of course, but it is fairly substantial evidence that we need faith in order to thrive, that without it we sink into either murderous violence or suicidal ennui.

Faith may be important, but faith in God is foolishness. Faith in ourselves is what we need to thrive - not faith in some imaginary robed superbeing.

As for all the other, more peaceful faiths that uplift and sustain so many, they may sometimes promulgate ignorance and superstition in trying to speak of what can only in the end be experienced, but just as often, and sometimes simultaneously, they are the source and center-point of the best in our communities and in our hearts. Without them, we won’t be here for long.

I heartily disagree. We would all be better off without faiths that promulgate ignorance and superstition. God is dead - and we’re all better off without.

More Lies about Unions

There is no reason to believe that unemployment would rise significantly under card check. Despite the statistics in this study, the benefits of unionized labor for the economy are clear. The projected impact on unemployment is unlikely. If it were accurate, one could make the argument that the inverse should hold as well (that lowered union membership would reduce unemployment). Obviously this is not the case. Moreover, increased union membership has not historically been associated with such increases in unemployment. The true causation is the reverse of the conclusion you arrive at. High unemployment drives union membership, as workers seek to protect themselves from becoming unemployed.

The benefits of unionization for workers far outweigh the potential harm. Increased wages, job security, health benefits and improved working conditions are all tangible benefits secured by unionization. All the EFCA does is prevent management from interfering with the organizers of a union. It’s about leveling a playing field that has been tilted against labor for decades. Trying to scare folks away from supporting unions by claiming that unions drive up unemployment is dishonest, and also irresponsible.

I agree with Clarence Thomas?!

I am usually the first to cast scorn on Thomas’ opinions, but in this case, I am glad to see that he defends the right of the people to protect their interests at the state level without interference from the feds. If only this opinion extended to a few other areas where the feds have over-reached…

Abstaining from 'Abstinence Only'

Of course abstinence education is unrealistic. So are many other government policies.

The bottom line on sex education is that kids need to know the mechanics, and how to use protection. Condoms save lives.

Rewriting Racism

Pretending that racism is extinct is not a responsible way to deal with the real and present discrimination happening throughout our nation. It is more of the cowardice that Holder is railing against.

White guilt is a misnomer - whites don't feel guilty, because most have not done anything wrong. It is simply more racism, disguised as a "victim" mentality. More cowardice.

Solving the race problems of America will take time and dialogue - pretending that the problems have all been solved is not an answer.

What rights?

I’m all for the proper approach to government assistance - and given what we have seen so far from Obama, he appears to share this belief.

Rendezvous with Reality

I think a "Rendezvous with Responsibility" is more like it.

After the complete disregard shown for Americans and the world by the GOP, it should be no surprise that Democrats are trying to move toward a sustainable future.

We could have moved into the 21st century with a much healthier economy, but thanks to massive deficit spending and a refusal to advance energy alternatives, the GOP has left us with a lot more work to do just to make ends meet.

Trashing Science

Global warming denial and misinterpreted statistics seem to go hand in hand. Not only do we have a denial here of the unprecedented spike in global temperatures, we also have a foolish claim that increased deaths from cancer prove that medical efforts have failed.

In reality, the global temperature figures from satellite data indicate a massive run-up in global temperatures is accelerating, and the cause of increased cancer mortality is increased life expectancy because of a reduction in other causes of death such as heart disease, stroke, and accidents.

Counterfactualism appears to be the modus operandi of the right these days.

Casting Racial Aspersions: GOP on race

It is funny to see a simultaneous complaint against Blacks for being Democrats, and a refusal to allow them into the GOP.

Blacks are the ones to make concessions. They must abandon their liberalism before the party of conservatism can consider their membership. A simple matter of principle.

There is a good reason that Blacks don't flock to the GOP, and it isn't the fault of the Democrats.

America is not Europe

America is hardly transforming itself into Europe. Some modest reform of tax codes, energy policy and health care is not going to kill the economic engine of the USA. America will remain a superpower, but will need to acknowledge that there is more to that status than military might - we need to lead by example on many fronts to retain/regain the trust of Europe and the world.

Much damage has been done to America over the past few decades, but as noted above, it can be undone.

What do kids want? Not the GOP...

I don’t think you grasp the reality of what people voted for.

the policies which the Democrats are pursuing, including nationalized health care and abolition of secret ballots in union elections, aren’t very youth-oriented and potentially could turn off younger voters.

Both of these are policies that the youth of America support. Nationalized health care will solve one big headache that young workers have to face, and card check will help them secure their future. These issues are very much youth oriented, and Obama is headed exactly where youth want him to go.

The issue of tax deductions for charitable contributions is a red herring when it comes to the youth vote, as most youth don’t have incomes that would allow for such deductions. Furthermore, the ultimate impact on charitable contributions is not likely to be large.

I don’t think you’ve found any real leverage here - but keep searching for that opening…

The Whining Right

Roger L. Simon was on Air America, and complains about his appearance...

Fear was the sales pitch for invading Iraq. Even if you personally had some other reason to support the push to war, the driving force for the invasion was fear - there was no other reason to occupy Iraq.

Being furious and ready to fight is fine, but directing that anger and desire for action into a war on Iraqi soil was a huge mistake. It would be better to channel such feelings to productive ends in the future.

Talking about race...

Jennifer Rubin takes on Eric Holder on race, proving his point that a conversation is long overdue...

Fairness?

AWR knows he is not being honest in this piece.

Radio spectrum is a limited public resource, and corporations have an interest in promoting their political agenda using the medium. It is not unreasonable to seek some degree of balance on our public airwaves. Most left-wing radio provides a balanced perspective, because leftists are willing to debate their opponents directly. Right-wing radio tends to eschew this type of debate because it points out how ludicrous the GOP platform really is.

I wish that the Fairness Doctrine were not needed - if corporate radio owners were responsible and did not abuse their monopoly on radio spectrum, it would not be - but given the abuse of our public resources by these moneyed interests, I would not be opposed to some form of fairness being mandated.

This is not a matter of freedom of the press, so much as it is a matter of how the public square has been defiled by one-sided corporate control of radio. Comparisons to non-broadcast media are fallacious.

Particularly idiotic is AWR’s attempt to liken radio spectrum to political power in Washington. We already have a system for ensuring fairness in government, which is our right to vote. Radio spectrum is not allocated on the same basis, so making such a comparison is just plain stupid. Broadcasters who fulfill their obligation to the public would not feel any impact from these regulations.

Second Guessing the Stimulus

Why would we turn back to the policies that got our economy into this mess in the first place?

The fiscal and monetary policies of the last eight years were a crime. The fundamentals of the US economy have been deteriorating for years, and Bush finally pushed us off the cliff.

Obama will not be able to restore America overnight. Reversing the Reagan Revolution will take decades, but it is the only responsible way forward. Turning back now would be a huge mistake. We still have time to prevent the worst case scenario of a total economic meltdown, but tax cuts are clearly not the answer.

Stimulus is a proven strategy, and despite the unprecedented condition of the economy, a coordinated global strategy is the most sure way to defend the market economies from collapse.

If Obama turns back now, and the economy can’t recover rapidly on its own, the American people will lean ever farther leftward. That is not an outcome that would bode well for the GOP.

Miss Congeniality

Harmless fun. But to portray Ann Coulter as a reasonable person using facts to back up her argument is a joke.

She is perhaps the most partisan person in the current media circus, and her lies know no bounds.

Criticism of her may also cross the line at times, but she deserves the vast majority of barbs she receives.

Unstacking SCOTUS

Bush had his chance to stack the court, and he did a bang-up job, placing two kooks of the wingnut variety deep into the bench. Obama will likely get a chance to replace one or two justices, but Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are likely to be a thorn in the nation’s side for decades to come. Even in the best case scenario, Obama can only get a bare majority on the court. It will take at least 20 years to get the SCOTUS anywhere near the center, so quit yer whining.