Democrats Whine About Obamacare

“Somebody should be held accountable,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif. “Absolutely.”

That’s from an AP story called Frustrated Dems lament damage from website bugs. Here’s my suggestion. Why not turn every Congresscritter who voted for it out of office? Wouldn’t that put some of the responsibility where it belongs?

And rather than delay the inevitable, why not kill it before it does anymore damage? Don’t mend it. End it. Meanwhile, the Republicans should …

Let it burn.

Deja Voodoo

Ah, the politicization of Science … Both the Left and the Right do it, but the worst abuses of the past couple of decades have been on the Left. If asked to name an example of Progressive Pseudoscience, many conservative would point to the global warming scam. My pet peeve is something else, the alleged differences between the brains of Republicans and Democrats.

Supposedly, the difference is that Republicans are inherently more fearful, and the “scholars” behind the study used “science” in the form of MRIs to “prove” it. 

Hank Campbell has a post over at Science 2.0 that explores the defects in this bit of Pseudoscience. Their methodology was poor, and their interpretation of their data worse. As Campbell points out,

Prior papers said everyone is motivated by fear, not just Republicans, and a later one determined that liberals are just being politically correct – when they get drunk and lose their inhibitions, they become more conservative.

Read the whole thing.

And the next time you try to convince a Progressive of something rational, buy him a beer.

Obama Vis-à-vis Nixon

The brouhaha over the DoJ’s leak investigation and AG Holder’s participation in the FBI’s searches of journalists’ phone records and emails points to a basic difference between the Obama and Nixon White Houses.

The Obama administration has used government employees to deal with leaks.

The Nixon administration’s plumbers were private contractors.

Both seem crooked, but at least one favored private enterprise.

What Difference, At This Point, Do the Facts Make?

Stacy McCain has a post up analyzing the Democrats “How Dare You?” defense of the Benghazi fiasco.

It seems to me that the Democrats’ positions is best summed up by the remark made by Rep. Simpson (D-Springfield)—

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.

UPDATE—Roger L. Simon reflects on Hillary de Medici.

Corrupt Politicians? In Maryland? Really?

Really! Wendy Rosen, one of the Democrats running for Congress in Maryland this year, dropped out of the election when it came out that she is registered to vote in both Florida and Maryland and voted in the presidential primaries in both states in 2008.

Stacy McCain, who recently left Maryland for an Undisclosed Location, asks

How many other Democrats from Maryland are also double-registered in Florida? Enough to tip a close election? Yeah, but never mind: No ID required! — because that would be racist.

Over at Hot Air, Erika Johnsen wonders

But, I’m just left wondering — and correct me if I’m wrong here — did Democrats just admit that voter fraud exists?

Well, yes, they did.

Who’ll Stop the Rain?

Long as I remember the rain been comin’ down.
Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages tryin’ to find the sun.
And I wonder still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.

—Gregory, Ware, and Marsh

Clearly, the One who promised to stop the rise of the oceans can’t stop the rain. Or at least that’s the Democrats excuse for moving the President’s big speech indoors.

TOM suspects that they think they can’t find enough live bodies to fill the large stadium. Hmmmm.


This Seems to Show a Lack of Confidence

Jim Geraghty reports that the Democrats are planning high-profile “counter programming” activities during the Republican Convention in Tampa next week. It’s been traditional that each party keeps a low profile during their rival’s convention if for no other reason than simple courtesy. Hard campaigning is the norm before and after, but each side usually has let the other have it’s week in the limelight. This year, the Democrats say that they can’t afford it.

They’re running scared.

Is it November yet?

UPDATE–From Instapundit:

HEH: Reader Arthur Barie writes: “The best snark on Biden going to Tampa that I’ve heard is, ‘If the Dems send Biden to Tampa, the GOP will punch back twice as hard and send Biden to Charlotte.’”

Their Lips Are Moving

Liz Peek begins a column at The Fiscal Times thus :

Democrats have either decided that lying to the American public is perfectly OK, or they haven’t done their homework. I’m not sure which is worse.

In either case, lying or incompetence, they’ve shown that they need to be turned out of office for a while, but I believe the case can be made that they are both lying and incompetent. Indeed, I think their lying to try to cover up the poor results stemming from their incompetence.

The Blue social model is failing. It is hitting the limits of Thatcher’s Law.

Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.

California is becoming Greece-on-the-Pacific. Illinois and New York aren’t far behind. Here in Maryland, the Democrats are struggling to find new ways to extract cash from the productive sectors of the economy as more high income earners leave the state.

Crony capitalism has stimulated the economy. Solyndra was pocket change. It looks as if taxpayers will have a net loss of around 25 gigabucks on the auto bailout. GM is still mismanaged and may go under again in a few years.

Are you better off now than you were four years five trillion dollars ago?

Is it November yet?

How Can You Tell If a Politician is Lying?

His lips are moving used to be the stock answer. These days, the sure fire way to know is to see (D) after his name, as in Harry Reid (D).

The Democrats seem to be in competition with each other to see who can tell the most outrageous lie aimed a Mitt Romney’s reputation. The factually-challenged ad from the pro-Obama super PAC that implied that Mitt Romney somehow cause a woman’s death from cancer is even more scurrilous that Harry Reid’s tax accusations.

Aside from the facts that the woman had health insurance from her own job for a couple of years after her husband was laid off from a company that Mitt Romney had left a year or so before the layoff and aside from the fact that the woman died after not seeking treatment under her own insurance, does it make any sense to try to claim that Mitt Romney caused her cancer?

Stacy McCain is calling the Democrats “The Party of Lies.”

The Democrats who put the ad together knew this. They knew that the steelworker’s wife died many years after her husband got laid off — and that Mitt Romney had nothing to do with him being laid off, anyway — and they just didn’t care, because, hey, they’re Democrats. They are full-time professional liars. It’s who they are. It’s what they do.

But the bogus cancer ad isn’t all. It seems that the liars are just getting started.

“No Religious Test”

The following is from Article VI of the U. S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You know that the left is beginning to panic when they start in on Mitt Romney’s religion in August.  (H/T, @DaTechGuyblog) The panic should intensify when the public ignores the “issue.”

The Times, They Are A-Changin’

When I was a kid growing up in Tennessee, state elections were settled in August rather than November. That’s when the primary was held, and whoever won the Democrat primary would win in November.

Things have changed. My old hometown paper The Tennessean reports that the Democrats are disavowing the winner of this year’s senate primary.

The party of Cordell Hull, Estes Kefauver, and Al Gore Sr. and Jr. won’t have a standard-bearer — or at least not one it can stomach — in Tennessee’s next U.S. Senate race.

Less than 24 hours after a man espousing conservative and libertarian views surprised the state’s political scene by winning the Democratic nomination, the Tennessee Democratic Party disavowed him, saying he’s part of an anti-gay hate group.

The party said Friday that it would do nothing to help Mark Clayton, 35, who received nearly twice as many votes as his closest challenger in Thursday’s seven-candidate primary, winning the right to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Corker in November.

There has been great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Democrats being plunged into outer darkness, at least by the usual suspects.

Of course, conservatives are having a good chuckle.

But the real lesson here is that the times have changed. Tennessee is now a reliably Republican state, but not a one-part state as it was a couple of generations ago. The voters haven’t become more conservative, but most of the conservative voters have been run out of the Democratic Party. What’s surprising is that there were still enough left for Mr. Clayton to receive 27 percent of the primary vote.

Honest Politician Sighting

Jim Geraghty notes that Democrats are saying that they are willing to have another recession if the Republicans don’t give in on the President’s tax-the-rich scheme. This appears to be an inadvertent burst of honesty. Look quickly–it can’t last long.

BTW, if we taxed folks with incomes above $250k at a 100% rate, it wouldn’t raise enough money to close the deficit, but we would kill almost all investment leading to new jobs.

Meanwhile, we are being told that unless “rich people” are taxed at a rate that will reduce job creation, we all will be hit with the across-the-board Obama tax increases and that federal spending will be scrambled by non-targeted across-the-board cuts. The Democrats are effectively saying, “Let us ineffectively soak the rich, or we will go scorched earth on the economy!”

Is it November yet?


One of the riffs du jour on the Internet today is about the apparent attempt by the President and his allies to “intimidate” the Supreme Court in order to get the “correct” decision on Obamacare.

David French’s post over at The Corner explains how dumb it is for the Democrats to try to influence the Court this way.

In my experience, federal judges are more likely to be angered than intimidated by direct attacks from politicians and pressure groups. They are “unelected” by design of the Framers, and that lifetime appointment gives them exactly the level of independence the Framers desired. Moreover, this is hardly the first time that the justices have faced high-stakes litigation, and it won’t be the last.
As I listen to President Obama, Senator Schumer, and others, I hear repeats of the legal arguments the Court already found wanting at oral argument. Will repeating simplified versions of those arguments before reporters or even angry crowds somehow make them more persuasive? Hardly. In fact, it merely reaffirms their weakness.

IANAL, but my father was, and he told me that the basic rule of litigation was stress the facts when they were in your favor, to stress the law when it was in your favor, and to yell and bang the table when neither was on your side. Do they really think that banging the table will change much at this stage of the game?

Is it November yet?

UPDATE–It seems that not everyone on the Left got the talking points memo. Ruth Marcus writes at WaPo that she finds the President’s comments “unsettling.” (H/T, PJ Tatler)

UPDATE 2–Well, it hasn’t taken very long for a court to react to the President’s remarks. The Fifth Circuit has asked a government lawyer for a written response from the DoJ concerning whether or not they consider Marbury v. Madison to still be good law. Oh, and scroll down to the update at the link to see that the Fifth Circuit’s reaction is not unprecedented.

UPDATE 3–A few days ago, I did a post where I suggested that the President was fighting outside his weight by picking a confrontation with Christians over the Obamacare contraception mandate. It looks as if he’s doing the same sort of thing with the Supremes and constitutional review. The phrase not ready for prime time comes to mind.

Is it 20 January, 2013 yet?

UPDATE 4–The President has issued a statement trying clarify his remarks. In his clarification he cites Lochner v. New York. He doesn’t seem to understand Lochner very well. David Bernstein does, and he comments at The Volokh Conspiracy.

UPDATE 5—John Hinderaker at Powerline corrects the President’s error in stating that the Supreme Court hasn’t struck down any laws that were “economic” or related to “commerce” since the Lochner decision over a hundred years ago. It zapped a part of Sarbanes-Oxley. It struck down the 1990 Mushroom Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act (Yes, Congress passed something like that) and Harbor Maintenance Tax Act and the …

One could be charitable and say that Barack Obama is a bullshitter who makes stuff up whenever he is in a tough spot, or one could say that he is a habitual liar. Take your pick.

1000 Days …

… and counting since the Democrats in the Senate put forward a budget.

UPDATE–It looks as if the President intends to run against the “Do-Nothing” Congress as part of his reelection campaign. But the chamber that isn’t doing much is controlled by his party. I’m not sure that I understand the reasoning behind such a plan, but I don’t understand the reasoning behind much of the President’s programs.

Oh, and lots of bloggers are noting this 1000 day milestone. Roger Morse has this at PJ Media. Kate Havard comments at The Weekly Standard’s blog.

UPDATE 2–The Heritage Foundation has posted this video on its blog.