« Gone Wisconsin | Main | In Drouthy Middle August When the Bones of Campaigns Show »

Sunday, August 14, 2011


Bill Fleming

It's a hot question, even among progressives. The other key question is if the mandate can be severed from the rest of the law. The most recent court to act on the matter seems to believe it can.

Obama's low ratings reflect disappointment on all fronts. If Hillary Clinton were to challenge him in a primary, she just might win. Now wouldn't that be the GOP's worst nightmare? Not to worry though. It ain't gonna happen.

And the GOP is busy futzing with which candidate (goofball?) to back... almost certainly destined to choose their version of George McGovern. It's going to be a nasty campaign on both sides, I fear.


Whee. Such joy.

Stan Gibilisco

" ... the notion of implicit limits on Congress's power will be dead. Liberals may well be very sorry if that happens."

Prophetic words?

If and when the beast that the liberals have been feeding finally turns on them, it'll be too late.

The end result will be anything but "liberal"!

The fact that the liberals cannot (or will not) see the peril amazes me no end.


This news would be better for Republicans if someone could shout "Man up!" about the poll standings of any of President Obama's potential challengers.


Hillary the GOP's worst nightmare? OOOOOOOKAAAAYYYYYY, if you say so. Her resume is not that good. Besides, if she were to primary President Obama and win, there would be a lot of Obama supporters refusing to vote for her. When there is a legitimate primary against a sitting President, the President or the President's party almost always loses. Humphrey (Johnson was primaried and chose to drop), Ford, Carter, Bush the Elder all lost elections after they, or the sitting President were primaried.
I guess I do not understand why you think the GOP should have their nominee chosen already if they have any hope of beating BHO. I believe there are at least three announced candidates who can beat him. And it won't come by playing nice. Already the Obama campaign is attacking Romney and Perry. When they hold Obama's feet to the fire, I believe he will crack. Thanks for the chuckle though! Hillary! Chuckle, chuckle.


"He fell below 40% approval"

Finally......It's about time!

Ken Blanchard

I am not sure I understand Cory's comment, but I notice that in a range of polls Obama leads Romney by no more than a few points. In several polls he only leads Michelle Bachmann by 6 or 7 points! That's pretty damn dismal for an incumbent in the White House.

George Mason

It's a long way to the summer of 2012 when a Republican candidate will be chosen. As has always happened in the past there will be tides and ebbs before a candidate is selected. It may very well be someone not currently in the race. What is also certain is Obama will not change. He has no capacity for leadership and he will not develop that in the next 15 months. The dems in the house and senate will run away from him as fast as they can next year in an effort to save their skins (and seats). This a default position we have seen from almost all incumbents in the past saddled with an unpopular president.

Donald Pay

Sure glad we have the mental health parity act on the books. This mandated coverage, signed by President Bush, requires health insurance carriers to cover treatment for mental disorders . This will be of use to the latest nutjob to announce for the Republican nomination, Rick Perry, who proved that he not thinks himself some sort of religious deity, but who threatened the life of Ben Bernanke. Can I request a mental hold on this kook.



"threatened the life of Ben Bernanke"

How exactly did he do that?

Ken Blanchard

Anne: there is preciously little joy for anyone in the news.

Stan Gibilisco

Rick Perry said that if Ben Bernanke goes with QE3, it would be tantamount to a "treacherous ... I mean treasonous" act.

Not actual treason, but almost. No threat to anyone's life.

I disagree with that extreme assessment. It's hyperbole, just what we do not need right now.

But it gets worse. See:


I like Rick Perry's philosophy, but his style needs work. As for Tom Coburn, well, I report, you decide.


What's so bad about calling the printing of money via QE1, 2, and now 3 treasonous. We don't have any money. I could go out and print money too when I run out, but that would land me in the local jail; what's so different about the gov't doing it? And I am waiting for the Dems to apologize for comparing the Tea Party to terrorists, but that will never happen.

Stan Gibilisco


My objection to the "treason" remark (and Gov. Perry only said that the behavior comes close to it, not actually crossing the line) derives from the high bar that the founders set for this particular crime.

Perhaps the founders saw, in their long-range sensors, the danger that if we make the "aperture" for treason too wide, all sorts of stuff could crawl through. If someone had sent money directly to a known major terrorist group bent on the destruction of the United States, that would meet the criterion for "aiding and abbeting the enemy." Merely printing money, harmful though it might be, does not "aid and abet the enemy" in any direct sort of way. (Indirectly, it might, but that's the sort of imagination stretch to which our founders would object, I think, even in light of the current political climate, which would give them nighmares I'm sure.)

Sorry for the awkward phraseology. It's the Biden in me.

I don't expect the Dems to apologize for any of their hyperbole, and I fully expect we'll see a lot of it in the months to come. As a Republican, I'd like to see our party take the high road and respond to such exaggerations in the same way a mother would react to her son or daughter "crying wolf." Shine the light on the others' foolishness, but let's not become fools ourselves.


The problem as I see it, Stan, is not that Perry made a comment that an action was "close to treason", but that what I am seeing reported is that he said it WAS treason. I have also seen where Perry has actually threatened Bernanke. It would be nice if people were just a little more accurate in their quotes. The comment by Donald is a case in point.

Donald Pay

I have to rethink this Perry thing. Perry will say stuff that (wink, wink, nod, nod) the kooks that follow him will take to mean he's threatening violence against some perceived enemy without really saying it. All this proves is that when it comes right down to it, Perry is a scared little pussy. His swagger sort of gives him away. He's just like Bush and Cheney---all hat, no cattle. People who have an inner strength don't have to project a gang thug persona.

The comments to this entry are closed.