You are currently browsing the daily archive for January 29, 2010.
This is in no way a defense of Alito but it still confirms my expectations. I was then writing
I don’t agree with the SCOTUS decision in any way shape or form. But I wonder if the witch hunt for dissenters will be as intense this time
Maybe not as intense as Joe Wilson – times are a bit different.
And here’s another popular thread, trying to get back at Krugman for dissent
Remember Krugman’s bit “Obama Liquidates Himself”?
Eventually someone posted
2. Krugman’s criticism was over the spending “freeze”:
his praise is for the job tax credit. I agree with Krugman on both. Why do people demand 100% loyalty on every issue despite FACTS?
They have been praising Obama lavishly – from Peggy Noonan to Drudge – throughout the elections and beyond. But what about lately?
Jonah Golberg : by the broken clock theory – he had a flash of insight when unpacking the new twist in propaganda:
The White House insists that the new wave of populism created by Democratic governance is, in fact, the same populist wave that carried Obama to victory in 2008. In other words, Obama was elected president by the backlash against his own presidency.
. I knew there was something wrong with that, but here it is – red on white.
In other Clinton haters news, New York Times has the nerve to come with this headline
Where Clinton Turned Right, Obama Plowed Ahead
Oh, the brave little Messiah! Faced with a minority in the senate of 59 to 41, and a House majority – he is still soldiering on! Only trying to cut Social Security and freezing expenses!
Somewhere in the third paragraph they actually recognize this too
The difference may lie in very different times. Mr. Clinton had already lost Congress by the time he gave that speech. Mr. Obama’s message was that Democrats should not be so certain that they were about to suffer the same fate.
Nothing, though, speaks to the differences between the visions of these two men more than the two bills, themselves. It starts in the preambles of both. The preamble of Clinton’s Health Security Act promises to protect the health security of every American and provide them the highest quality care while at the same time controls the growth of health care spending. The preamble of ObamaCare, in the guise of HR 3200, says only “to provide affordable quality care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending and for other purposes.”
Plowing ahead – but in what direction? WaPo seems to agree with me
After Obama speech, Democrats confused about path ahead
Now that they can’t say – see, Clinton failed to pass healthcare, but Obama won’t, new angles are explored
Spin away, mateys!
It’s funny, because one of the dissatisfied B0bots wrote that Obama wanted to take a right turn like Clinton, only he was already there…
Somerby dissects Quinn’s most recent column where the Queen Bee of DC threatens the Obama’s with her own personal brand of divine retribution for being lousy hosts. “Pretty nice administration you got there. Wouldn’t want anything to *happen* to it.”
but still no actual hiss
Any others you can add?
Frank Rich, still drooling over the Clenis is repeating his paper absurd slogan
He did not retreat into the bite-size initiatives — V-chips, school uniforms — embraced by an emasculated Bill Clinton after his midterm pummeling of 1994.
Still having those dreams, Frank?
Both NY Post and Daily News have identical headlines today – but it’s not propaganda this time
Turns out, it was nothing but a case of NIMB – the most expensive backyard of all:
After Obama’s billionare’s buddy Bloomberg joined the wingnuts on the 9.11 trials, Obama kissed his ring.
Kelly made an “extremely powerful” speech to a roomful of 150 prominent business leaders about how disruptive and costly the trial would be for lower Manhattan at an annual police charity event on Jan. 13, the source said.
What followed was a barrage of complaints to the mayor from some of New York‘s most powerful tycoons – part of a tide of pressure that led Bloomberg to turn against hosting the trial.
Can’t inconvenience the tycoons! Wall Street is too close!
Geez, I thought this as about a principle. Due process and all that.
NY Post adds a heap of more scandal on Elliot Spitzer as well.
It is very troubling to see such decisions being made by the White House under political pressure. The choice of venue is supposed to be made by prosecutors on the basis of the most logical venue after considering the location of the crime and other factors. We just ended a period in which the Justice Department was politicized by the Bush Administration to an unprecedented degree.
This story follows Obama’s statements that virtually assured the public of convictions, here. It also followed a very political press conference by Holder where he seemed to go out of his way to describe why a Manhattan venue would maximize the bias of a jury at the trial.