How the left wins political arguments: keep it simple, stupid

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Mrs Whatsit” send me a link to this article by Megan McArdle about the influence of elite insiders on the making of policy recommendations and explaining the rationale behind them to the public. Worth reading.

I want to highlight the following:

The net effect…was that the administration could make claims that were impossible to effectively refute in debate, because doing so required voters to follow lengthy technical discussions, and the readers had whole lives to live and didn’t have time to master the arcane art of…

The actual ending of the sentence was “CBO budget rules,” because McArdle is talking here about the passage of Obamacare. But it occurs to me that you could fill in the blank with almost anything politicians do and that the MSM covers, actions that neither the politicians nor the MSM actually want the public to understand in any deeper meaningful way. You would be talking about one big reason why spin and propaganda work.

I often make efforts on this blog to get the story behind the story, to research my posts and write in enough depth so that I’m not just repeating talking points or slogans. If it sometimes helps to make what I write tedious or long, so be it, but I tell myself that at least the process of doing the research has helped me understand the truth better, although never completely.

It happens all the time that I find the story behind the story to be fascinating, and very different from the spin. I came across that yesterday with the “Reagan and Bush gave executive orders on immigration, so what’s the big deal if Obama does the same thing?” argument Democrats were making. It’s the talking point you see everywhere from Democrats and the left and their minions in the MSM, sometimes accompanied by photos of Reagan. Obama last night alluded to the idea that he was only doing what all presidents have done (the unspoken corollary, by the way, being that acting as though it were different could only come from animus and/or racism towards him in particular).

It is completely untrue that he is only doing what Reagan or Bush or other presidents have done before him. Not all executive orders are alike. Not all executive orders that deal with loosening or extending a rule on immigration are alike, either, as I explained in this post yesterday. But understanding the reasons why what Reagan and Bush did was not at all the same as what Obama did would “require voters to follow lengthy…technical discussions” (in McArdle’s phrase about Obamacare). Obama and the Democrats and their supporters are bargaining right now, in the constitutional crisis over immigration that Obama has initiated, that (exactly as Gruber admitted re Obamacare) the majority of American voters are too stupid and/or too lazy to understand what’s really happening, and will passively accept the “Reagan and Bush did it” argument.

Therefore, especially if the MSM is on your side, it’s easy as pie to tell effective lies, if you’re bold and blatant enough, and no one has an interest in checking up on you.

Because the “Reagan and Bush did it” argument will be heard over and over again, it’s a good idea to revisit some of the salient facts, and the discussion isn’t really all that “lengthy and technical” (although perhaps more lengthy and technical than most people are willing to follow). I wrote some of the facts in my post yesterday, as I said, but I think the most interesting ones were actually quotes from Powerline in the “addendum” to that post. I’m going to repeat those quotes here, because I think it really shows how shameless the MSM is in ignoring and/or distorting history in order to influence people politically. Here’s Paul Mirengoff with a little history lesson:

The Act [passed by Congress in 1986] also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).

House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Well, now we know: there is nothing Obama’s enablers wouldn’t excuse and justify

The New Neo Posted on by

We used to ask the joking question: what could Obama do that would get his supporters to cross that imaginary line from defending him to condemning him?

The joke was that the answer was “nothing.” There was nothing he could do that they would not try to justify.

It was a joke, but not really a joke. The very harsh reality is that it seemed clear that almost all Democrats, pundits on the Democratic side, liberals, and the left were so in the tank for the man that they had abandoned all principle—that is, those who had ever cared about principle in the first place (other than “power forever”), or had seemed to care about principle, or had mouthed words that sounded like caring about principle. They would now find other words to explain why those principles were really not being violated by things Obama was doing that obviously violated them, or why this or that violation had to happen because somehow the opposition (Republicans, conservatives) had driven Obama to it.

And so, if Obama literally had crowned himself king last night instead of merely doing it figuratively, his enablers would say that Reagan had done the same thing, since he once wore a crown on Halloween.

If Obama had called a Republican senator into the Oval Office for a talk and then had taken out a gun and shot him dead, Obama’s enablers would say that Reagan had done the same thing, since he once spoke harshly to a Democratic senator. What’s more, they would say, the Republican made Obama do it by being so mean and racist to him—and, furthermore, it shows the need for more gun control.

You get the idea.

Obama has crossed many many important and heretofore sacred lines; too numerous to mention them all. This blog is one of many that describe/demonstrate the reaction of the right in real time. But the line he crossed last night into trashing the Constitution and dictatorship was the most important line of all that he’s leapt over—so far, that is. I have little doubt that he has other lines he intends to violate, especially if there is no effective pushback to this action of his.

It was midway in Obama’s first term that it suddenly occurred to me that in a second term (if he managed to win one) he would be far, far worse in terms of boldness and willingness to act out his radicalism, because no fear of the public in a future presidential election would check him, and he felt himself to be unimpeachable. What I didn’t think about was that the radical nature of what he was willing to do would take still another leap after the 2014 election, because then there would be no more voter feedback towards Democrats in Congress during the rest of his term, and time would be getting short for him to accomplish that Hope and Change stuff (that is, changing America into a leftist dictatorship with a permanent Democratic majority dependent on Big Government).

Obama would be nothing without his enablers in his Party, in the press, in the schools, in entertainment, and in the public at large. They are legion.

So here we are.

Obama’s address: open thread

The New Neo Posted on by

Today I have a very busy day and evening ahead—and, perhaps fortunately for me, I plan to be out enjoying myself when Obama gives his address tonight.

Some of you may choose to watch, because it promises to be a historic and interesting occasion, as in the Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.”

So here’s a thread for the discussion that will no doubt ensue, for those of you who can bring yourselves to watch it and those who cannot.

I’ve been thinking about tyranny lately; why it is that some people are horrified by it and recognize it when it is threatened, and why some excuse it as long as the tyranny is in a cause they favor. I’ve written about tyranny many, many times before (most of those posts would come under the category “liberty” on the right sidebar), but never have I felt its hot breath breathing down my neck as I do tonight.

As preparation for tonight’s events, I thought it might be advisable to review the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, and how it went down:

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and thus its adoption required a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.

The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) were expected to vote against the Act. The government had already arrested all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies under the Reichstag Fire Decree. The Nazis expected the parties representing the middle class, the Junkers and business interests to vote for the measure, as they had grown weary of the instability of the Weimar Republic and would not dare to resist…

The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler’s speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws. Within three months after the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on July 14 by a law that proscribed the founding of political parties. With this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: “I set for myself one aim ”¦ to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!”

There’s much, much more; please read the whole thing if you have a moment. In Hitler’s case, he got the Reichstag to eliminate itself through the legislative process. In Obama’s case, he’s not eliminating Congress, he’s usurping it and using it as his tool to follow or not follow at his discretion, a more subtle approach, and he’s doing it by an executive action that he believes Congress will be unable to effectively oppose.

Another usurpation of power you might want to mull over is that of Chavez, whom I’ve long thought Obama resembles. I wrote this in September of 2009:

At present, it’s Chavez whom I see as closest to Obama, both in goals and in modus operandi. Fortunately, our Constitution is more of a stumbling block to tyranny than that of Venezuela, but it’s not an absolute impediment.

Please read the whole thing.

Boston Ballet’s “Swan Lake”

The New Neo Posted on by

I recently attended Boston Ballet’s new production of the old warhorse “Swan Lake,” and enjoyed it despite (or maybe because of?) the fact that I’ve seen the ballet about twenty-five times before, in many difference guises.

I’ve seen companies from the sublime to the not-so-sublime. I’ve seen choreography with the usual sad ending and ones with happy endings. I’ve seen ones where there are Freudian overtones and ones danced by all-male casts. But to me, the very best ones adhere to the tried-and-true “Swan” basics. For the most part (with a few stupid exceptions, at the very beginning and the very end, plus a too-short fourth act) Boston succeeded in doing just that, and it was a beautiful sight to see.

I had a perfect seat, just a few rows up in the mezzanine, the better to perceive the patterns in the “white” acts, the second and the fourth. The music by Tchaikovsky, and the choreography of those particular acts (by Lev Ivanov in the last years of the nineteenth century) are sublime, and merge into one seamless work of art. It sounds hokey to say it, but when that “Swan” corps gets moving fast, in winding circular patterns with arms raised as if in flight, the audience cannot help but be stunned at their transformation into birds (or actually, bird-maidens). The illusion is perfect.

What’s more, Boston’s smoke machine—which begins both acts by suffusing the stage with a romantic mist that is hugely enhanced by a dappled lighting effect—draws involuntary oohs and ahs from the audience. No matter what stage effects you’ve seen before, and how jaded and sophisticated you might be, this hits the spot with its otherworldly glow, and a special touch has the swan corps lying in lovely poses underneath all that smoke and then gradually emerging as it clears.

The Swan Queen I saw the night I attended was Anaé¯s Chalendard. She’s not in the first or even second cast; maybe third or fourth, and I’d never been aware of her before. Maybe not the technically strongest of Queens, she was plenty strong enough, despite a thinness that was extreme even for a ballet dancer. Her Swan Queen managed the neat trick of being simultaneously swan and human about as well as anyone I’ve ever seen (and that’s saying something), and with a very baroque style that was also very French. Her Prince was somewhat of a dullard, but the Prince is a somewhat thankless role anyway that’s very hard to pull off, so I forgave him.

The costumes were extremely ornate but not the least bit garish. Lovely! But I have a quibble: that gold trim on the swans’ costumes is not a good idea. It somewhat dilutes the effect, which should be of pure whiteness.

I highly recommend the production if you’re in the Boston area. Unfortunately, this run is over. But I bet it will be repeated in the future.

As an added bonus, here’s something I’ve posted on this blog before. It’s a photo of neo-neocon, age sixteen, in costume for a role in Act III (Italian variation) of an arts camp production of “Swan Lake.” I also was a swan in the second and fourth acts, but I don’t have a photo of that handy—although I have the pictures somewhere, in some drawer or file or envelope or other.

JeanDanceTam2-001

[NOTE: For a previous post I wrote on the wonderful moment in which Odette, the Swan Queen, is transformed from swan-maiden back to swan, see this.

Here are drawings for some of the costumes and sets. Some behind-the-scenes video here (I can’t seem to figure out how to embed it, so you’ll have to go to the link to watch it). This video shows very brief glimpses of some of the beautiful effects I’ve mentioned.]

Our wannabee sovereign will address the nation this evening

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve been waiting for this for quite some time, haven’t we?

For months Obama has been saying, “I’m gonna do it, I’m really gonna do it—unless of course you give me what I want.” He even told us the timing; it would be after the election. So he had made a promise to his radical base (Hispanic and otherwise) and a threat to the Republicans in Congress, as well as thumbing his nose to the American voters who had expressed disapproval of him on November 4. You don’t get a trifecta like that every day from a president.

I wrote that what Obama is about to do is a threat to Republicans in Congress. But actually, it’s a threat to Congress itself. Democrats should be just as disturbed as Republicans by it, because it’s not the ends that are as important here as the very dangerous means. But if you’ve listened to most Democrats talk about it, you’d think ends are all they care about—and for most, it is.

Obama has the strong support of leading Democrats, who seem only too happy to cede the power of Congress to the president to get something they think will benefit the Party. Of course, they don’t state that it’s a dangerous executive power overreach; they say this is just like what other presidents have done when they use their executive discretion to tweak immigration laws. Surely they must be aware of the differences. But being aware has nothing to do with it; ideologues of the left have no trouble telling themselves that 2 + 2 = 5, and that what Reagan and Bush did was just the same as what Obama is poised to do now, even though only political junkies have even heard of the former actions before because they were relatively non-controversial.

Suddenly there are tons of articles from the left explaining how Obama is only doing exactly the same as what Reagan and Bush did with their executive orders on immigration. The left has its talking points and marching orders, and is dutifully complying. And of course there are many from the right explaining why this action of Obama’s promises to be radically (in every sense of the word) different.

Frum summarizes the differences here, and they are substantial:

Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for all” solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their ambition, the statute’s authors were confounded when their broad law generated some unanticipated hard cases. The hardest were those in which some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was…

…[Obama’s about-to-be announced action] would not further a congressional purpose. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress…

Another summary is here:

Reagan and Bush…made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.

…In short, while Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unconstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress time and time again, thereby setting himself up as a kingmaker (or king) on immigration policy.

By doing so, the president is establishing a dangerous precedent that violates fundamental principles of separation of powers that serve as a bulwark to protect our liberties and that established a government of laws and not of men.

That’s not the only way that Obama’s action is unique, and uniquely awful. I can’t think of another case in which a president himself has made the case that an action is unconstitutional, and made it repeatedly while in office, and then reversed himself and said it’s perfectly constitutional because he’s grown impatient and wants to do it. Obama himself has clearly said, over and over (22 times, to be exact), that he can’t do it. But we are supposed to forget that, like those Soviet photos that removed Communists who had incurred the wrath of the Party and become unpersons.

Let’s hear the opinion of a legal expert who happens to mostly agree with Obama’s ends, but deplores Obama’s means in the very strongest of terms. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, says, “It’s a very sad moment, but it’s going to become a particularly dangerous moment.” When asked specifically about resemblances to Reagan and Bush’s executive actions on immigration, he says simply and unequivocally, “this would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers within our system.”:

Reports of the death of the republic are perhaps premature. But it is in critical condition. Much will depend on the reactions of Republicans, and on whether a significant number of other liberals join Turley (for example, even Ruth Marcus, of all people, is at least uneasy about the precedent being set by Obama) in expressing condemnation, and joining with Republicans to fight Obama with great vigor and intelligence.

[ADDENDUM: Paul Mirengoff at Powerline further explains the details of just how different the executive actions of Reagan and Bush were from that Obama is about to issue:

The Act [passed by Congress in 1986] also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).

House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.]

Justifying tyranny

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama is attempting to rely on people’s ignorance about the makeup of our government, and why it’s structured the way it is, when he argues that he has every right to ignore a duly-passed law on immigration just because he happens to feel like it. And Eugene Robinson, one of Obama’s loyal Ministers of Propaganda, is relying on that ignorance of the public as well when he writes this column in favor of such action.

This is how the propagandists for tyranny argue:

Oh, please. All the melodramatic Republican outrage isn’t fooling anybody. The only reason President Obama has to act on immigration reform is that House Speaker John Boehner won’t.

I repeat: That’s the only reason. The issue could have been settled a year ago. It could be settled in an afternoon. The problem is that Boehner refuses to do his job, preferring instead to spend his time huffing and puffing in simulated indignation.

The rest of the piece is a discussion of how wonderful the Senate immigration bill was, and how the House should and would pass it if it came up for a vote. I don’t even think it would get past the new Senate, much less the new House. But of course Robinson ignores the fact that he’s wanting to push this through a lame duck Congress because time is about to run out.

At any rate, all of that is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why the bill hasn’t come to a vote in the House. It doesn’t even matter that Harry Reid has done the same stalling thing to countless bills in the Senate since Republicans came to control the House. The point is that Congress is Congress and does what Congress does, and the president is a president and must stick to what presidents do.

The only one throwing the hissy fit is Obama. “I’ve run out of patience” is not a justification for tossing out the Constitution. Neither Obama nor Robinson has even tried to explain what the big rush is—but of course we know what the rush is. Obama had to postpone the action till after the 2014 election in hopes that we stupid Americans wouldn’t catch on to the game, and now he has to race to finish it before the new Congress is sworn in, because that would make it even more likely that they would defy him in some way. What he’s really hoping for is that his bullying of Congress will successfully intimidate them into passing the law before the next session begins, but it’s not going to happen. Even Republicans in the House aren’t that stupid (at least, I think they aren’t).

Robinson ends with this: ” If House Republicans won’t consider the national interest, Obama has no choice but to act.”

No choice. The Republicans made him do it, see?

That rang in me a distant, fading bell of recognition, and I realized it recalled the very first astoundingly awful thing I ever noticed Obama doing, back in June of 2008, when he broke his campaign finance pledge. Remember that? It wasn’t so much that he went back on his word; I could handle that if he acknowledged it and took responsibility. Instead, what did he do? Why, blamed Republicans, that what:

It’s not just that he reneged, either”“it’s how he reneged. Who’s to blame, according to Obama? Why, John McCain and the nasty Republicans, that’s who. James Joyner writes that this charge of Obama’s does take “a bit of gall.” I’d say it takes substantially more than a bit, as well as a heavy dose of the whining, blaming, audacity in which the holier-than-thou Obama tends to specialize:

“‘The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.’”

As they used to say in the schoolyard, takes one to know one. Actually, it’s Obama’s campaign that’s been doing virtually all of the latter, as Jim Kuhnhenn of the AP points out:

“Despite that claim, few Republican-leaning groups have weighed into the presidential contest so far. In fact, Obama allies such as MoveOn.org are the ones that have been spending money on advertising against McCain.”

But Obama doesn’t want to let a little thing like this fact get in the way of a good argument, or at least an argument that sounds good. And once again, he’s relying on the American people not to know or care””and, if the comments by his supporters are any indication, he could be right…

Note the occurrence of three themes back then that we’ve become very very used to in the six years since it happened. The first is the choice of the word “broken” to describe the system Obama’s aiming to flout. The second is the blaming of the opposition rather than taking responsibility for his own choice. The third is a lie about what that opposition is actually doing.

Back then, what Obama was proposing wasn’t unconstitutional, of course. What he’s proposing to do now is far, far worse. Back then, much of the MSM defended him, too. I remember understanding that it meant they were in his corner for the long haul, and would go far in abasing themselves on his behalf.

And so they did.

The Bill Cosby rape allegations

The New Neo Posted on by

My thoughts on the subject of the multiple rape allegations against Bill Cosby:

(1) I have no idea whether Bill Cosby is guilty of rape. Neither do you, and neither does anybody except Cosby, and each woman who has accused him. And each woman only knows about her own case, not the others.

(2) Rape is one of the most difficult crimes to deal with in the evidentiary sense, unless the woman goes immediately to the authorities and semen is found. Even then, the question of consent arises, unless she’s been abducted and beaten or otherwise physically injured. Not all rapes match that set of circumstances, and without such things the case becomes a “he said, she said” nightmare.

(3) There are plenty of sociopaths willing to lie about a celebrity to make a buck and get their 15 minutes of fame.

(4) On the other hand, there are plenty of sociopaths who present a good facade and yet are capable of committing such a crime.

(5) One of the most important elements of these cases is when it was that each woman came forward. Their veracity is especially suspect if they came forward after it became public knowledge that the first woman had accused Cosby of rape and and the idea of a lawsuit and a settlement was in the air. If they came forward before those facts were known, the chances that they are telling the truth is improved, although it certainly is not proven. I haven’t read anything that answers my question of “when?,” but I’m guessing they all came forward after.

(6) Demeanor matters—although again, it proves nothing. I watched two of the accusers tell their tales on TV, and if I had to guess (and it would only be a guess), I’d say that they are lying. But, to repeat #1, I really do not know.

(7) Despite all of this, many people feel absolutely sure that Cosby is guilty.

RIP Susanna Merry Hanson

The New Neo Posted on by

Victor Davis Hanson has lost his beautiful and accomplished daughter Susanna, 27 years old. It is heartbreaking to see the photos of this vibrant young woman and know that her life was cut short. I offer my condolences to the entire Hanson family.

I want to add that at the end of the piece Hanson writes:

Remembrances may be sent to The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (340 W Fallbrook Ave Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93711).

I am highlighting that because I know quite a few people with one or the other of those diseases, and the cause has special meaning to me.

Not enough Democratic votes to pass Keystone

The New Neo Posted on by

I can’t help but conclude that the Democrats don’t really care all that much whether they have one more senator or one less during the next Congress, because they failed to get behind Mary Landrieu’s rather transparent bid to appear to have some influence over her party.

She most assuredly does not, or Keystone would have come to a vote in the Senate long ago. This vote was embarrassing: 59 to 41.

Keystone is very popular with the American people. It’s not the least bit popular with President Obama, however, who almost certainly would have vetoed it had it managed to pass.

My guess is that not only was the bill brought to a vote as a manipulative, unserious bid, not only would Obama have vetoed it if it had passed, but the 59-41 vote total (just one shy of the number needed) was orchestrated as well, in order to avoid embarrassing the president by his vetoing it.

It’s almost as though the Democrats wanted to embarrass Landrieu, though. Why bring the bill to a vote if it wouldn’t be passed? As for protecting the president from the need to veto it, won’t that veto happen anyway during the next session? It’s even possible that come January, Republicans will be able to muster enough Democratic votes to override the veto, making them look like the party of “yes.”

None of it makes much sense to me as a Democratic strategy unless—as becomes increasingly apparent—Democrats think the American people (or at least the voters of Louisiana) are really, really, really stupid.

Connectivity issues

The New Neo Posted on by

I just spent the last hour and a half arguing with Comcast about their lousy service and their lousy efforts at finding out what’s wrong with their lousy service. I’ve been dealing with connectivity issues off and on for several months, and today the whole thing seemed to get considerably worse, to the point of no connectivity at all (I’m at a friend’s house for the moment in order to be able to post this).

I plan to do a little more posting later today, but right now I’ve got other obligations to tend to.

So, here’s the question for all you techies: Comcast gave me a new modem about a month ago, and now they say they’ll come and give me another new modem. But how can the first one go bad so soon? I doubt that the modem is the problem. I think it’s just Comcast trying to kick the can down the road.

My computer seems fine; it works well in other places. For a while Comcast tried to tell me my computer must have a virus, and even sicced me onto some terrible computer analysis people, and then all those people did was to very aggressively try to sell me some $150 antivirus or anti-spyware program.

Oh, by the way, today when I asked the Comcast person to connect me to a supervisor, she acquiesced and then I was disconnected. Favorite and clever ploy; who wants to go through all the preliminaries (which take about 20 minutes) again?

Jonathan Turley agrees to represent Congress in lawsuit against Obama’s usurption of power

The New Neo Posted on by

I admire law professor Jonathan Turley. I’ve written about him before, and called him a principled liberal/libertarian.

Therefore it is extremely satisfying to read Turley’s announcement that he will be taking on a new challenge, on an issue he’s thought about long and hard:

…I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This case is being taken very seriously if Turley is being hired.

This is not, I repeat not, a challenge to whatever executive action Obama is threatening to take regarding immigration, although of course it is in the same general ballpark. As Turley writes, in his usual clear manner:

As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.

Turley is one of the last of a dying breed: people who will act to defend basic overarching principle even if the result goes against their personal policy preferences. But perhaps I misspoke there; perhaps this breed isn’t really dying. Perhaps it never was all that common.

[Hat tip: Ace.]