Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Obama's Bad Week Continues. . .

Obama can’t catch a break. He keeps making wrong move after wrong move because he has bad instincts. Not to mention, he apparently doesn’t have a clue how to get himself re-elected. Ha ha. Let’s discuss his most recent bad moves. Consider this the feel good article for the week. :)

El Stupido One: Obama really screwed up this week. While speaking to Vladimir Putin’s mini-me, Dmitri Medvedev, in South Korea, Obama said into an open microphone that he needed more time to surrender our missile shield as Putin demanded because of the election. Said Obama, “after my election, I will have more flexibility.” Whoops.

It is a scandal that Obama plans to surrender our missile shield and thereby expose Poland to an aggressive Russia. But that’s not why this was a problem for Obama. The real problem for Obama is the broader implication of what he said. This statement reminds voters that the only thing keeping him in check is the need to get re-elected. Once he gets re-elected, he will act like “real Obama.” That prospect will frighten conservatives, who will wonder how much worse he can get, and it will turn-off moderates, who had hoped he would moderate his views with a Republican Congress. What this does is rally conservatives behind Romney (now that the primaries are effectively over), and it will cause moderates to see Romney “the moderate” as more likely to be moderate than Obama, who has been using moderate rhetoric in public but is privately promising to go full-retard after the election. This hurts Obama.

El Stupido Two: This Trayvon Martin thing will blow up on Obama. He should have kept his trap shut. Why? For one thing, because it reminds people that Obama is a racist and he only seems to care about the suffering of blacks. . . “what state was that flood in again?” Indeed, people are starting to ask why Obama commented on Trayvon, but didn’t comment on the shooting death of a white Mississippi State student by three black males this week, or why he hasn’t commented on the shooting of two unarmed British tourists by a black Sarasota, Florida teen. Americans do not like presidents who play racial favorites and this reminds people that Obama is such a president.

Further, the misconduct of Trayvon’s exploiters will turn off the segment of the electorate that took Obama at face value when he said he would be the first post-racial president. Indeed, since his election, his allies have smeared anyone who criticized him as racist. Blacks in the Congressional Black Caucus cried racism when they were caught breaking laws. They made up false claims of racism against the Tea Party. Eric Holder has pursued a truly racist “civil rights” agenda. And now, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers and others are busy inciting racial hatred. This is the exact opposite message Obama needs to send to win over moderate whites. And as more evidence comes out that Team Race is trying to lynch a possibly innocent man, the blowback is building. This appears to be Duke Lacrosse all over again. Indeed, we’ve now learned that a 13 year old witnesses says Zimmerman was the one being attacked -- and his wounds were consistent with that, we’ve heard the 911 call which is not at all what it was portrayed, and we’ve learned that Trayvon was a thug. Add in a mother who has trademarked his name so she can profit from his death and you have a recipe for significant blowback.

El Stupido Three: Finally, let’s discuss Obama’s campaign video. Obama has produced a 17 minute video pimping his re-election. The video is narrated by Tom Hanks. And it is fascinating.

First, this was a stupid thing to release because only diehard supporters or opponents will watch a 17 minute video. So there was nothing to be gained here. Then it got worse because right after its release another video was released of Tom Hanks getting caught on stage with a hedge fund manager who is in blackface and who makes racist comments. Hanks now claims that he was blindsided by the appearance of this man, but he wasn’t. He doesn’t leave the stage or chastise the man. Nope. Instead, he launches into an attack on Bill O’Reilly. This has neutered the 17 minute video entirely and raised the question of the double-standard liberals use. And following Slutgate, where the left tried to defend people like Bill Maher, the timing couldn’t have been worse.

Moreover, when you look at the video’s contents, you quickly realize that Obama has no idea how to get re-elected.
● The video itself is dark, depressing and defensive. And it’s crawling with self-pity as it keeps whining about how much responsibility has been dumped on our oft-golfing president. You can’t win the White House being whiny or pessimistic.

● Most of the video blames Bush. That’s not going to work four years after Bush left office.

● He’s terrified of his record. He never says “the stimulus package,” though there is one mention of the “Recovery Act.” He doesn’t tout Dodd Frank. He does talk about the auto bailouts, but he’s defensive as he tries to claim they extracted significant concessions from the unions. He mentions ObamaCare a lot, but only the promised benefits, which is the same sale pitch which keeps ObamaCare at the 40% support level in the polls. There’s almost no foreign policy mentioned except the killing bin Laden, which got Obama a 3% bounce which faded immediately. What the video does contain is a laundry list of promises to his different constituent groups (blacks, gays, feminists, enviros, etc.). That won’t play well if someone puts them all together for a general election commercial. Also, the whole video has been torn apart for being packed with lies and distortions. Even the leftist mouthpiece The Washington Post awarded it 3 out of 4 Pinocchios. That’s bad.
So what does this mean? It means he’s planning to run a depressing campaign. That’s a loser. He’s planning to blame Bush. Good luck. It means he’s afraid of his record. But without a crazed Republican in the race, that’s what this race will be about. Hence, he’s doomed, especially since the only achievements he’s willing to discuss either can’t get above 50% support in the polls or got him no credit with the public.

Add in the above, and you also have the Democrats going out their way to alienate the electorate by stirring up racial tensions, and Obama’s Medvedev comment putting the lie to his plan to run as a moderate. Right now, Obama and friends are doing everything wrong. They are alienating moderates, alienating whites, and energizing the conservative base. This could be one of the least competent campaigns in human history.

Finally, before you say, “don’t underestimate him,” keep in mind that Obama has never won a competitive election. All of his opponents imploded on their own. What’s the one thing Romney has shown cannot happen with him? He won’t implode.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site. Today we resume the Politics of Trek series!

70 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

well . . . . I wasn't going to vote to re-elect him anyway. After yesterday's post, I have less enthusuasm for the reasons people vote the way they do (e.g. "Bill Clinton is hot" etc.) Seriously, I think he will not get re-elected. And that is a good thing.

T-Rav said...

Ever since some of this started to come out over the weekend, I was trying to stay neutral, but my personal suspicion was that this would start to build and build until the MSM finally has to drop its defense of Martin (of course, they'll just stop talking about the story, rather than apologize to Zimmermann) and leave the hard-core agitators like Sharpton to carry on alone. So far, I'm partly right, and it's only Tuesday.

Writer X said...

Let the good times roll!

What's even better than listening to Obama explain his way out of a gaffe/lie is the explanations of his Press Secretary.

LL said...

This is making me reconsider my intended vote for Obama and a continuation and ramping up of the fundamental changes he plans to bring in the process of remaking America into an ObamaNation.

LawHawkRFD said...

Obama should go back to basics and the KISS principle. His campaign slogan should be "I should be re-elected because I should be re-elected." It's short, it's simple, and it makes more sense than anything else he has said so far.

rlaWTX said...

haven't read this yet, but I go this link from Patriot Post this morning and had to share...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs&list=PL088CCD66E83BEFCD&index=77&feature=plpp_video

it fits the subject matter of this article.

AndrewPrice said...

Morning everyone.... just a quick annoncement. Blogger has announced "a new look April 1." So hold your breath. It looks like we won't have choice with whatever it is. Let's hope it's not a disaster.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Somehow, I didn't think you were on his list of potential voters! LOL!

But keep in mind, elections are won and lost in the middle and by exciting/depressing bases. Obama is doing everything he can to depress his own base, excite our base, and then turn off the people in the middle. This is the worst possible strategy.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I always try to stay neutral in these things because I've seen it too often that the first impression is almost always wrong.

And you're right, the racebaiters and the MSM jumped on this: evil white guy guns down black child in cold blood. Enter the usual suspects. Stir the pot.

Then the facts start coming out and none of it is aligning with what the MSM has portrayed. Even on the 911 call, Zimmerman reports that Martin stops and is now heading toward Martin. Nor does he sound like a racist -- he basically is acting like he thinks Martin is stoned. And now the witnesses.

But even more to the point, this will all blow up on Obama because whenever race becomes an issue in elections, it goes poorly for the Democrats. And with Obama's promise to be done with that, this couldn't have happened at a worse time -- especially as he stupidly commented on it (and hasn't commented on reverse-race crimes).

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, Obama has never had quality press secretaries. They don't understand that their job is to clam things down and make harder to follow. Instead, they go on the attack and try to beat people into submission, which only works so long with the MSM. It's asking for trouble.

Plus, none of them have been all that bright.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, LOL! I'm glad you're rethinking your plan to vote for Obama! Although I understand the temptation to vote for him, as he's been such a stunning success in all things, I think perhaps his time has passed? ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That would be an improvement over:

"Vote for me because everything sucks because Bush did it. And if I only had four more years, I could sort it all out."

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It's like Obama lives in a Lake Wobegone world where everyone is above average. Amazing.

rlaWTX's Link

StanH said...

This is what infuriates me about our choice of candidates this cycle. Barry is imminently beatable, and off the heals of 2010 we could have had a rock-ribbed conservative as our nominee, and really rolled back Washington - - of course this is what the ruling class fears most.

A side note: I saw Arlen (Sphincter) Specter on Fox & Friends this AM, and he referred to the Tea Party as cannibals, noting that it was like the late ‘70s again, and the rise of the great Ronald Reagan where ideologues ran wild, my words. He felt his vote for Barrycare was just, and Constitutional, he felt however that conservative ideologues, unlike Kagan, Sotomayer, and Ginsburg, would find it unconstitutional, wow! His biggest grope was that Barry stabbed him in the back, losing his senatorial fiefdom to one of those Tea Party Animals, cannibals. I know it’s anecdotal, but for me it was a revealing look into the mind of a hopeless statist. We really need to keep firing these jerks by the bushel.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, That is a very revealing look into his mind. He's delusional isn't he? And isn't it amazing that in his mind, the lockstep contingent aren't ideologues, but the people who plan to genuinely look at the constitution... people whose votes ARE UNCERTAIN... are the ideologues. What an ass. We need to clean Washington out of the lot of them.

DUQ said...

Excellent article Andrew and a definite feel good piece! You are right that this is all blowing up on the Democrats and it doesn't even need a huge explosion to prove that. I expect a steady drift away from them because of these things.

DUQ said...

On Martin, I have tried to keep my mind open. I know a lot of people prejudged the situation and that strikes me as a distinctly not-conservative thing to have done. I see a lot of them backtracking now. The best thing for the race lobby to do would be to stop talking about this until the facts come out and then quietly fade away, but they won't. They are like a pack of wild idiots who can't stop foaming at the mouth once they start because their goal isn't justice, it's fomenting hatred.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ! I don't think there will be a huge explosion because the public doesn't work that way -- only leftist protesters work that way. That's what made the Tea Party such a stunning development because it got the public to actually go to rallies -- something the public generally does not do.

I expect that this is will be more of a quiet revolution in the sense that rather than generate outraged protests, it will instead simply make conservatives more determined to vote and will help moderates make up their minds quicker.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I agree, it's not very conservative at all to prejudge a crime. It's also not very bright because when has the MSM EVER reported something fairly? And prejudging it based on what the MSM reports is just feeding the liberal beast.

You're right too that the race lobby should drop this immediately, but they can't. Once they start and all the usual players arrive, they can't stop. And this time, they will hurt Obama and the Democrats a great deal. I would bet you their behavior will be worth 3-5% in the election in Florida and maybe 1-2% nationwide.

Doc Whoa said...

I am optimistic that Obama won't win. I see the evidence everywhere and you've pointed out much of it.

I haven't seen the video and I won't watch it, but I did laugh at the Tom Hanks debacle. That seems to have made everyone forget Obama's video. From what you say though, it sounds like Obama wants to run away from his record and on promises of future conduct, but you can't do that as an incumbent.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I'm sure Obama won't win. Seriously. ALL the signs point to that.

I think it's clear that Obama does intend to run away from his record, but you can't do that as an incumbent. You're record is what people judge you on. So the fact he thinks he needs to run from it should wake people up to the fact he's in real trouble.

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, That's how I see it too. I also see that the MSM itself is now pointing out that Martin's mother has trademarked his name, and Obama has been forced to spend the day explaining his "hot mic missile comment." It sounds like the MSM is not helping him this time.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, The MSM has gotten quick to abandon/turn on the Democrats these days because the conservative media has made it impossible for them to ignore stories as they did in the past. So they basically are now forced to report on them.

StanH said...

Heard an interesting twist in the lynching of George Zimmerman, just came across the radio. The Black Panther who put the bounty on GZ was arrested in the Atlanta area, for illegal possession of a firearm, as he is a convicted felon. I wonder if Eric Holder will run in and save him from the evil racist at Dekalb County PD. I would reckon DCPD is 80% black. Interesting, huh?

T-Rav said...

And let's not forget, Spike Lee tweeted George Zimmermann's address. Should he be killed (God forbid), will the media have anything to say about the perils of vigilante justice?

T-Rav said...

Also, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to shoot down the individual mandate on a 5-4 vote. According to reports, Anthony Kennedy was just giving the thing a browbeating, and when you've lost Anthony Kennedy....

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, Why am I not surprised that this guy would have a criminal record and would be carrying a firearm? The only surprise really is that he was arrested. It must be racist cops looking to make a point of solidarity with Zimmerman.

I actually read that the New Orleans Police Department fired a cop for calling Martin a thug and saying he got what he deserved. It's funny how quick the left is to react when they hear something they don't like, but how slow they are otherwise.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That should be a crime and he should be arrested. That is incitement to murder and that is exactly the sort of thing they've arrested people for in the past.

If he is killed, I'm sure the MSM will have no problems being pro-vigilante "justice" in his killing, but anti-vigilante justice otherwise. Hypocrisy is not a problem for them.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I'm not at all surprised. I really do think that intellectually, that is what they must do -- only the liberal justices are doing the political thing.

Keep in mind, this court has shown a lot of respect for the 10th Amendment and has worked to restrict the Commerce Clause. If they allow this under the Commerce Clause, then there really are no limits to what the Federal government can do.

I also expect they may be about to strike down affirmative action in the next session.

Ed said...

More flexibility after the election huh? I guess he's planning to do some stretches?

Ed said...

T-Rav, I haven't had a chance to see any of the articles about it, but I'd heard that Kennedy was the weak conservative link. If he's attacking the individual mandate, then it must be in trouble. Has anyone said what he said to attack it?

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That must be what Obama means -- more flexibility! LOL!

On T-Rav's point, I haven't heard what Kennedy said, but I doubt Kennedy said anything blatant like "this thing stinks." Courts rarely say that, though I did once have a state Supreme Court justice tell the other guy in one of my appeals, "you better come up with something to explain his point." He didn't. :)

I suspect it's probably more in the sense that Kennedy is asking a lot of pointed questions which indicate a strong sense of doubt.

Ed said...

Andrew, I just read an article and found that Scalia and Roberts said this:

"If the government can do this, what is left? What else can it not do?" asked Scalia. "All bets are off," Roberts agreed.

That sounds pretty strong.

It sounds like the leftists are defending by claiming this isn't unusual under the commerce clause.

T-Rav said...

Ed, he basically started off by asking, "Yes, Congress can regulate commerce, but can it create commerce?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) The general tone of his questions indicated he was extremely disturbed by the implications of the mandate.

Also, everyone is saying Obama's Solicitor General has done an absolutely horrible job of defending the thing; he doesn't seem prepared at all. The liberal justices are really doing more to defend it than he is.

Ed said...

I also think the MSM knows they're in trouble because now they're pushing this idea that the Supreme Court heard the case "too soon" and should push off the decision until the law is implemented.

Ed said...

T-Rav, Oooooh, that is a good point.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That's a great point because if they accept this, then there really are no limits left on federal government power. I'm not surprised the leftists are defending this because they are political hacks, not jurists.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I actually just saw that. That is a super point as well -- there is no commerce here to regulate. Congress is forcing people engage in commerce and then claiming the power to regulate from their being engaged in commerce. That's a logical fallacy and courts are very good at rejecting logical fallacies.

I agree about Obama's Solicitor General. From what I've seen, he's going with two lines: "the government wants this and you should defer to the government" (which ignores the fact their role is to decide if the government has this power) and "but people don't have insurance and this is the way to make them get it" (which ignores the question of whether or not that's the government's role).

I think it is unlikely that a case like this can be lost by bad lawyering, but it is reassuring that he hasn't come up with a moment of tremendous lawyering to save this law. In other words, I doubt he can lose this through incompetence, but he could have won it by making a brilliant point but he clearly has no brilliant point.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Forget the "too soon" idea. In many cases, courts won't hear something if the issue isn't "ripe" for consideration. And it's always possible that is what the court will find -- that they will send it back down. But it's highly unlikely. For one thing, there's no reason to see this as not ripe. The mandates are kicking in, the states are already being forced to set up exchanges, and everyone has laid out their cases. Moreover, this is a legal case, not a factual case, so there's no need for more evidence. Finally, this court has been very willing to cut to the chase, unlike prior conservative courts.

So the idea that the Court will avoid a decision is wishful thinking.

darski said...

I haven't read the comments yet - this new system... grrrr- but do you know that Obama is selling HOODIES to make campaign money? Really????

That goes way past pathetic into psychotic.

AndrewPrice said...

darksi, I didn't know that, but nothing about Obama shocks me. I saw also that someone is selling shirts with the word "Cracker" on them right now. That's a derogatory term like "n*gger" for white Southerners. Could you imagine the outrage if white wore shirts that read "n*gger" after a black man shot a white person?

Ed said...

Oh oh, this just in. Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm not surprised. He also apparently has volunteered as a black church and he has black friends who are defending him on television. The idea that he's a racist redneck is about to fall apart.

T-Rav said...

Apparently Martin's parents are going to be at a hearing in DC later this week, having to do with hate crimes. Whaaaa???? Even if every part of the liberal narrative about this incident is true, how does that make Zimmermann guilty of a hate crime, instead of simply being trigger-happy and jumping to conclusions? This has officially reached the "milk it for all it's worth" stage.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Because they want to exploit his death. They will go with this narrative that this poor innocent black child was ruthlessly gunned down by a racist white redneck who was out looking to kill a black kid.

The fact that NONE of that is true won't bother them in the slightest. This is why I find the race lobby to be so utterly despicable.

Everything I've seen tells me this was a tragic incident where nobody intended to hurt anybody, but it ended up in a death. But now they are going to lynch Zimmerman and dance on his grave while crying crocodile tears over Martin just to score political points AND MONEY.

It's disgusting and it highlights the problem with race this country still has -- and that problem isn't that whites are racist, it's that black groups what to see the world as racist and will happily lie to make their wish come true.

Kelly said...

I am surprised at the number of conservative who jumped on Martin being guilty. I guess they don't really believe in the constitution do they?

T-Rav said...

Kelly, or it's not as important to them as trying to score points with the right people is.

Kelly said...

T-Rav, I get that feeling. Too often conservatives talk about the constitution but they don't really respect it, and they often seem more interested in scoring points than doing the right thing.

On this issue, I can understand having an opinion as to his guilt, though I've learned never to trust what the MSM tells me at first, but still, conservatives should always be beating the drum of "don't jump to conclusions." You can't make a rational decision until you know what really happened and you hear form all sides. Until then, you're just making an emotional decision and that plays into the hands of liberals.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, I agree, but don't forget -- there is a difference between what you believe personally and what the law requires. The law requires a presumption of innocence. You don't personally need to have such a presumption.

That said, it would be better for conservatives if they made sure to make the point very clearly that we should never prejudge these things. Why? Because that's how the left wins. They put out a slanted case to stir people up. And if conservatives fall for that or tell people it's ok to fall for that, then we are already behind the eight ball when the facts start coming out. Conservatives should always caution people not to make snap decisions because we can't trust the MSM to tell us the truth in their reporting.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's true too. FAR TOO OFTEN conservatives say things which run directly against their political interest just to score points.

The Herman Cain thing was an great example of this. To get him out of the race, conservatives pretended to be shocked and horrified at anonymous allegations of a non-crime made and promoted by liberal sources with connections to Obama. How stupid is that? It's very stupid. And they did it because they thought it would help their own guy by getting rid of Cain. And the price? The price is that they made it easier for people to buy into the liberal position on those issues.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, I didn't see your comment when I first posted -- curse the new commenting system. I agree, see my comment above. :)

Kelly said...

Andrew, No problem, I don't like the new comment system either and I'm not looking forward to whatever blogger will be throwing at you next.

I agree about conservatives too often doing the wrong things. It's unfair to judge conservatism by the actions of a few, but that is the reality. So all we can do is push back when people do that.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, It is sadly beyond our control. This one could be ugly if their draft versions are any indication. I've already had to undo that a couple times. And it looks like April 1 they'll be forcing it on everyone on blogger.

Yep, all we can do is push back and hope that if enough people push back, our errant friends will realize their mistakes.

ScyFyterry said...

I have a gut feeling that Obama is in trouble because he seems to defensive. His entire administration reminds me of a walled castle with them firing shots at people who get to close. There is no sense that anything good has been happening there.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, You have good instincts. You can generally tell how things are going in politics by watching how "open" or how "tight" people are. Team Obama is tight. They are scared.

ScyFyterry said...

Andrew, Good way to put it -- tight. They are very uptight. I see them snap at reporters, give curt press conferences, and I never hear any of the feel-good stories you always get. Also, they are always on the defensive. I don't think Americans like that.

T-Rav said...

Here's a link to some of the oral arguments from earlier today, or at least the highlights. Incidentally, Kennedy may be a bit more of a weather vane than originally thought, at least to judge by the closing comments. (Isn't that always the way?)

LINK

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, I see no joy in Mudville. That's a bad sign for an administration. And their plan to get dark, depressing and nasty isn't going to work. Americans love optimism.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks. Politico had the entire transcript and I thought about reading through it, but I've got to go see my dentist in a few minutes (and frankly reading the whole transcript is not an exciting prospect).

What did Kennedy say to make you think he's blowing in the wind? The admittedly little I've seen seems to indicate that he's not buying the idea that this is a constitutional.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I haven't read any comments yet, but I first wanted to say, "Oooh!" Great point about Romney never imploding!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Thanks! I think that's Obama's biggest problem -- he needs his opponents to implode, but Romney never will. Romney just isn't the kind of guy to do or say anything that get him in real trouble.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I was referring mainly to where he seems to agree that mandates might be a good idea in certain cases, and that "something" needs to be done about the whole health care problem, which strikes me as waffling. But maybe not. I hope not.

AndrewPrice said...

Ah. Yeah, that does sound a bit like waffling. But it also sounds like he's likely to say, "there is nothing wrong with mandates generally, but this one goes too far." Which is a standard kind of waffle you see from these guys.

I'm pretty sure he'll strike it down.

That said, I see no evidence they're going after the entire law in this decision. I guess we'll see though.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Check out this quote from Kennedy:


JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.



That's a very bad sign for Obama. That means Kennedy thinks the law is against ObamaCare, which means his default position will be to overturn this provision.

AndrewPrice said...

Also, here's what CNN's Jeffery Tobin said. He thought the law would pass 7-2 and now he thinks it's finished:

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law, were wrong. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Justice Alito, Justice Scalia were constantly skeptical. Justice Thomas didn't say anything, but we know his position on the issue. The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts, who asked hard questions of both sides."

ellenB said...

I love your optimism. I hope you're right Obama will lose. I could not stand four more years of his evil

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, That is hilarious. I heard Tobin for days now say that there was no way the court would side with the opponents. He made it sound like only a fool would believe that was possible. I guess we know how much fath to put in him.

Doc Whoa said...

sorry, "faith" not "fath". :)

AndrewPrice said...

ellenB, Welcome! I have much faith that Obama will lose. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, Tobin is an idiot, but he's doing nothing more than parroting what liberal con-law types have been saying since this began. They are clueless and this is real proof of that. Not only have they been wrong, but they've been incredibly wrong -- they even called this whole thing "frivolous" when it began. That means that it was so obviously wrong that it was unethical to even make the claim... and now the Supreme Court is going to accept that argument.

Imagine that.

Post a Comment