Tuesday, February 08, 2011
The Common Cause of anger: The NYT's transporting hypocrisy
In a broader discussion of the hateful and eliminationist campaign by activist group Common Cause against Justices Thomas and Scalia, James Taranto does as good a job of exposing the editors of The New York Times as intellectually dishonest as I have seen in years. And President Obama agrees!
Lefty blogger Jason Easley notes that in yesterday's pre-Super Bowl interview on Fox, "Bill O'Reilly used a Wall Street Journal editorial to try to make the case that [President] Obama is a left wing socialist out to redistribute income":The President easily knocked down this claim by saying, "Well the Wall Street Journal would probably paint you as a left wing guy. I mean if you are talking about the Wall Street Journal editorial page, you know that is like quoting the New York Times editorial page."
This columnist, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, finds the president's comparison hurtful and invidious. The newspaper that employs us adheres to the highest standards of journalistic integrity.But Obama's comment is telling as well. Imagine: The most liberal president America has ever had is attempting to discredit a criticism by likening the critic to the New York Times. What stronger indication could there be of how low the Times's reputation has sunk?
Does it get any better than that? I submit that it cannot!
8 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Tue Feb 08, 07:48:00 AM:
The statement belies more deceit than candor.
Some new analyst has finally told Obama that there are more votes to be had near the center of the political spectrum than along the left fringe.
So all the moonbats who have been supporting him are now being sucked into that great black hole under the Obama bus.
Obama is still a moonbat at heart. Theat's why he practically choked reading his SOTU speech.
Narcissism stands alone!
By Progressively Defensive, at
Tue Feb 08, 11:54:00 AM:
I'm posting this in case you read these Mr. Tigerhawk.
From Glenn Reynolds:
COLUMBIA LAW PROFESSOR PHIL HAMBURGER: Are ObamaCare Waivers Unconstitutional? “The president cannot simply decide who does and does not have to follow the law.” But mama, that’s where the fun is.
That last line is his. He is the innovator in this field and has only improved upon his craft. I figured you'd find it funny.
By 
, at
Tue Feb 08, 06:46:00 PM:
"That last line is his."
CWCID: It's actually Springsteen's. I saw the first public performance of "Blinded" in over 30 years at the Hurricane Floyd 50th Birthday Show at the Spectrum back in 1999. For Bruce, nothing beats a Philly crowd, says this Bronx Bomber Hazard from Harvard, and I've seen them all.
I didn't bother watching O'Reilly on Obama. It's not news, it's not journalism. Much of what's on Fox sucks as much as CNBC and it's even less "honest." Am I wrong?
I mostly hate Fox News not because it's "Right" but because it mostly only riffs on the BS spin of the day. In particular, O'Reilly is mostly a bully except when he sucking up to power. Ironically Glen Beck delves "deeper" than all the rest I've seen on Fox. Am I wrong?
By , at
Tue Feb 08, 08:00:00 PM:
Back to the lede:
Even this nerd got lost in all this. But my radar is picking up a pattern of attacks from the left on the Supreme Court. JournoList lives: They're looking ahead to ObamaCare.
We've talked about the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate here before. Here's an update:
During her confirmation Donna Kagan ducked whether she'd recuse herself on ObamaCare. She won't. While she's smart, everyone who cares knows that her best qualification to SCOTUS was that she was a Friend of Obama. [Insert historical reference to LBJ and Abe Fortas here]. This will piss off the rest of SCOTUS to no end, even Sonia.
Most of SCOTUS is already really pissed at Obama.
Upholding the Individual Mandate would require SCOTUS to raise the high water mark of the Commerce Clause ... we can argue how much, but it would. Doing so would open the door to making SCOTUS less than the Third Branch. To defend its own powers, expect SCOTUS to overturn ObamaCare.
It won't be 5-4, ... Sonia will vote with the majority. She's no Kagan.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Feb 08, 08:20:00 PM:
"Doing so would open the door to making SCOTUS less than the Third Branch. To defend its own powers, expect SCOTUS to overturn ObamaCare."
A drastic overstatement. The Supreme Court was supine to Commerce Clause-based legislation for like 60 years and it didn't 'reduce them to less than the Third Branch.'
I do, however, agree that Obamacare is judicially dead. Kennedy sided with the majorities in Lopez and in Morrison, and despite his reputation as a swing-voter he is logically consistent in his decisions. And the Supreme Court in general is sensitive to the future implications of their rulings (i.e. recognizing that if this abomination is upheld, the federal government can literally force its population to do virtually anything by cloaking it in the language of 'commercial activity).
By , at
Tue Feb 08, 10:11:00 PM:
"The most liberal president America has ever had..."
A fine post.
It is hard to believe anyone would trust a thing Mr. Obama says anymore.
Remember those promises about lobbyists, earmarks, taxes, signing statements, executive orders, bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, transparency, etc?
Change is a joke.
But this concept about him being the most left is amusing.
Have so many forgotten what the Clintons tried to do upon their entry into the White House?
They tried to Nationalize Health Care, gave us one of the biggest tax increases in our history, radically modify the military with gender - gay offerings, originally fought welfare reform, etc., etc.
We can look further into the Democratic Party and find many just as left as the Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, etc.
Nearly all of those serving in the Obama Administration served in the Clinton Folly back in the 1990's. Rham Emanuel is a primary example of the same old failed radical Democrat. Holder, Hillary, Biden, etc., all embrace the same disastrous policies as Mr. Obama.
Jimmy Carter was just as radical as Obama, and Ramsey Clark is a primary example of that old Democratic Party disaster.
I just feel many make a huge mistake, giving the rest of the Democratic Party and it's horrible history a pass. That centrism is a big facade, played to survive politically, hoping to push more mindless policy on all in the long run.
We see the same old repeated mistakes from Carter to Clinton to Obama. We are still paying for the Clinton Era exploitation of Fannie - Freddie - Hud to distribute wealth via quasi Government institutions for political gain.
This is not a case of "ONE BAD APPLE", but a dreadful Partisan Machine sinking all.
Thank you.
By , at
Wed Feb 09, 09:58:00 AM:
Reply to DF82.
I said: "Doing so would open the door to making SCOTUS less than the Third Branch."
You said: "A drastic overstatement. "
I don't know that you and I are disagreeing that much as you go on to say: "if this abomination is upheld, the federal government can literally force its population to do virtually anything" Presumably that's because SCOTUS couldn't stop it, which was part of my point.
We just had two years where the Democrats were ascendant especially because they had 60 votes in the Senate for awhile. During this time Obama & Co acted as if we were a Parliamentary government -- lines between the Executive branch and the House and Senate leadership were blurred. Most Democratic Congresscritters acted as if they represented their party, not their district and mostly voted as instructed. The roles of Treasury and the Fed were altered, perhaps permanently. The net result set a precedent for increased centralized power that we haven't seen except in time of war (real war, not vanity projects like Vietnam).
The Democrats have since lost control of the House, but Obama is intent on continuing his agenda by other means even though We The People sent a different message in the last election. We're about to see this fight escalate when the House tries to deny ObamaCare funding. Implicit in what Obama's doing is to create a new quasi-constitutional right to government-provided healthcare that will be difficult to overturn legislatively. I say "quasi-constitutional" because future voters will be limited in their ability to overturn what's been done ... our framers tried to make legislation hard to pass ... ironically that'll now be used against future voters.
Obama & Co have been intent on deligitimizing SCOTUS since they took office. It's deliberate.
SCOTUS handicappers mostly see this as a 5-4 vote along party lines. That's real close. A lot can still happen.
SCOTUS mostly interprets laws, not Constitutional questions, and there's a lot of power in that. But upholding the Individual Mandate would make the Commerce Clause support just about anything, as DF82 acknowledges. If a future President is lucky enough to have voting control of Congress, he could enact just about anything, and SCOTUS would have little say so... that was my point. The Commerce Clause got expanded under FDR because he had so many votes he could credibly threaten SCOTUS with court packing. Later SCOTUS courts -- even ostensibly conservative ones -- have been whores for federal power. But it has to stop somewhere...
By , at
Wed Feb 09, 02:42:00 PM:
Dawnfire82 is correct in my opinion. Anything that expands the reach of the federal government eventually expands the reach of the federal courts. The black-robed beaurocrats like expanding their empire as much as any of us. We'll see if judicial integrity can trump this power grab.
