How can Obamacare be unconstitutional when it gets us all this nice stuff?

The New Neo Posted on by

Ten things you would miss if Obamacare were to be overruled by SCOTUS. So why would anyone but a meanie want to take away all that nice free coverage?

Take a look at the comments section. A significant number of the commenters don’t even seem to begin to understand that there are constitutional issues involved rather than mere spite. And the ones that do appear to get that basic fact don’t seem to understand that the constitution differentiates very clearly between the powers delegated to the federal government and the powers reserved to states.

And I don’t think that’s pretense, although I believe most of the pundits and politicians themselves understand that principle quite well and yet ignore it for strategic and demagogic reasons.

Sample illustrative comments at the article:

Why be against Obamacare? Most of what the right wants to do is wrong and only benefits the 1%.

The ONLY reason people are against this is because Obama created it. Romney already enacted forced health care in his state.

Seems pretty strange that so many people oppose this. But if you explain what the law actually does, they are for it.

I’m waiting for them to read me the part of the Constitution that says that you cannot mandate anything. Where were these people when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law? Where were these people when President George W. Bush started a war without Congress’ concent?

Riddle me this! How can Americans approve of the provisions within a bill, and still be against the bill? We just can’t have nice things.

Because Fox tells them that the bill is bad, since they don’t think for themselves, it makes them think the bill is bad

People will die if the affortable care act is shot down and the SCOTUS will have blood on thier hands!

[ADDENDUM: From Ross Douthat:

Partisan about-faces are inevitable, but they’re arguably easier on constitutional matters. Change your mind on immigration, and your constituents may well revolt. Change your mind on whether a president has the power to do things on immigration policy that your constituents already support, though, and only your partisan critics and the occasional law professor will care.

This is why it’s so remarkable that our constitutional order has lasted so long, given the perpetual incentive ”” common to both parties, and all three branches of government ”” to abandon its safeguards in order to push a particular agenda.

Today those incentives are strongest for Democrats ”” visible in their support for Obama’s more dubiously constitutional forays, and also in the widespread liberal attempt to explain his struggles by casting him as a Gulliver tied down by an antiquated system of government.

Conservative pundits have noted that similar explanations were proferred to explain the failures of Jimmy Carter. That in and of itself isn’t proof that they’re wrong. But it suggests the possibility that some of the ways this president has been baffled, legislatively and perhaps soon in the courts, reflect the genius of our constitutional system rather than its failings. It’s a system that often lacks principled defenders, but that’s designed to defend itself.

Unlike Douthat, I do not think the tendency to reverse or abandon constitutional principles is equally prevalent in both parties. I think the right is more consistent in sticking to its principles even if it makes it hard to achieve the desired outcome on a particular issue. But only somewhat more consistent, and only a certain portion of the right.]

Sandusky convicted

The New Neo Posted on by

No surprise there—Sandusky seems very, very guilty, and will probably spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

This is not the end of the legal ramifications, though; civil suits will almost undoubtedly follow. There are a lot of sad things about this case, but perhaps the saddest is that, despite so much smoke, the fire was allowed to burn for so very long.

Republicans fear Obama’s eloquence? Excuse me?

The New Neo Posted on by

Sometimes I wonder where Peggy Noonan has been for the past few years.

Back when she was Reagan’s speechwriter, she seemed to have her finger on the pulse of something. But “out-of-touch” is too mild a term to describe this:

An odd fact: Republicans more than others, amazingly, have internalized and hold to the idea that this president has some secret magical powers he’s just waiting to unleash. Those powers normally go by the name “eloquence.” But the eloquence was always exaggerated, and to the extent it existed, there’s no sign it’s about to kick in.

I don’t know which Republicans Noonan hangs out with (David Brooks, admirer of the perfectly creased pant? Christopher Buckley?). Actually, I don’t ordinarily hang out with a whole lot of Republicans myself—except on this blog and other spots in the blogosphere. But I have yet to meet one or read of one or hear from one who meets Noonan’s description.

It is Democrats who have internalized that idea, and who aren’t fearing but rather hoping that Obama’s glorious rhetorical powers kick in, just in time to wow the electorate once again.

The only other explanation I can think of for Noonan’s bizarre statement is that she’s been keeping company with too many pundits, wordsmiths, and speechwriters—Democrats and Republicans—who overestimated both Obama’s eloquence (never really in evidence) and the power of eloquence itself without action to go with it. Perhaps she even overestimates her own power, lo these many long years.

Reagan was a good speech-maker, and Noonan assisted him in writing some bang-up speeches. But if that had been all he did, he would have lost his bid for re-election to a second term. Talk—even talk that’s truly eloquent—only goes so far.

Not much news today

The New Neo Posted on by

Sometimes I wonder what makes me pick a topic to write about.

Some days there’s a story du jour that cries out for treatment, even if only to provide a forum for commenters to talk amongst themselves about it. Sometimes there’s something that strikes a deep and resonant chord within me and makes me especially interested, whether or not anyone else in the MSM or blogosphere is paying attention. Sometimes I’m looking for comic relief, distraction, inspiration, comfort, you name it.

And sometimes all the stories seem remarkably redundant or stupid or irrelevant. A Politico reporter disses Mitt Romney in an especially egregious way? Bain Capital blabbity blabbity blah from the NY Times and the Obama campaign? Various polls that purport to mean something in terms of what will happen in November? Bluster and speculation about the pending SCOTUS decision on HCR when in truth no one has a clue what SCOTUS will rule?

News is often that way, but some days are worse than others. It’s a little early to say that the silly season has begun. But maybe it’s all the silly season now. Of course, I don’t really yearn for a big story, because they so often tend to be about disasters and calamities. I’ll take boredom over that.

When I was writing this post, a little earworm started in my head. It went like his, “No news today, my love has gone away…” I couldn’t place the lyric, but when I Googled it I discovered that I had gotten it quite wrong. It’s actually a song by Herman’s Hermits from the 60s, and it goes like this:

It strikes me that they certainly wouldn’t be able to get away with lines like “the company was gay” these days.

And it also makes me wonder whether milk delivery has gone the way of the dodo. It had been such a ubiquitous part of my youth (yours, too, probably, if you’re anything like a contemporary of mine or older). We had a little wooden box outside the side door, where the milkman would come and deliver his goodies—including the glass bottles of milk that had cream on the top, and a perfectly-fitting lid with a little tab that you pulled to open it. Of course, I hated milk even back then, but I loved that milkbox and it was often my job to go out there and get that bottle and bring it on in.

But enough milk delivery reminiscence. Let’s have some more musical reminiscence. This one actually is about the news rather than milk delivery—sort of, kind of, although it’s really about love and its comings and goings. But aren’t they all?

Will Holder stay or leave?

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Several years ago a great many people were predicting that Obama would ditch Holder because he was too much trouble to the administration. I opined that it would not happen. I was looking at the post again the other day because there’s been similar speculation about Holder and Obama in the light of the Fast and Furious debacle, and I think a good deal of what I said then is still quite relevant. So here’s a repeat.]

In this post’s comment thread there was a discussion of whether President Obama is making some room under that crowded bus for his Attorney General Eric Holder. Jennifer Rubin has written a piece speculating that this might indeed be the case, citing the fact that Rahm Emanuel has gone on record as distancing himself from the controversial decisions made by Holder in the KSM trial and the Christmas bomber interrogations.

In my post on the subject, I wrote “Holder is a proxy for Obama himself.” Commenter “RickZ” responded:

No offense, neo, but every presidential cabinet appointment is a proxy for the President himself, that’s the nature of the beast at these rarefied positions.

So I would like to clarify: by using the word “proxy” in Holder’s case, I meant something different than the usual Cabinet appointee, the usual presidential representative. I could be wrong about this, but my gut senses a close identification between Obama and Holder, an almost-Vulcan-mind-meld between them on the legal issues involved in fighting terrorism. This is not a compliment to either man; I think both are sadly misguided.

Holder serves a purpose for Obama. If there is an issue on which the President is somewhat loathe to express his opinion fully, perhaps because he knows it will be unpopular or controversial, I believe that Obama purposely uses Holder as cover, to draw the opposition’s criticism and deflect it from himself.

Perhaps the proper word for the relationship might be “surrogate” or “mouthpiece.” This is not to say that Holder does not have opinions of his own. I am not claiming he is a puppet. But his opinions are so closely in sync with Obama’s on these issues that for all intents and purposes they are one.

For this reason, I disagree strongly with those who think Holder is about to go. I suppose Obama might sacrifice him if it becomes necessary for strategic reasons (after all, he’s been known to do such a thing). If the decisions they both support because so unpopular Obama feels the need to disassociate himself from Holder and use him as scapegoat, it will happen. But this would only occur in the most extreme of situations, because Obama is so wedded to these views himself, and they are completely integral to his own attitude about the legal status and treatment of terrorists.

Holder is also no ordinary Cabinet appointee for Obama. They have known each other since 2004, the year Obama first achieved a national profile. The two met at “a dinner party hosted by former White House aide Anne Walker Marchange, niece of Clinton friend Vernon Jordan.” Very soon after declaring himself a candidate in early 2007, Obama requested that Holder be part of his campaign, and “Holder served as a legal adviser and strategist and led Obama’s vice presidential search committee.”

Holder is a trusted adviser and member of Obama’s inner circle. It probably doesn’t hurt, either, that Holder is a graduate of Columbia and a former basketball player, much like Obama. But it’s their common attitude towards law that creates the strongest bond between the men. As Holder says, “We are on the same page.”

And I don’t think Obama is eager to turn that page.

Ugly dresses

The New Neo Posted on by

I just discovered this website, where I plan to spend a bit of time now and then whenever I’m in desperate need of some frivolous R&R.

I tend to suspect some of these fashions are not for real. But here’s just one of the ugly dresses you can find there (although perhaps “ugly” isn’t quite the correct word—“bizarre” might be better):

To pull off something like that, it helps to have attitude. And she’s got it.

But I’m rather fond of these bridal shoes, as a sort of post-modern ironic commentary on something-or-other:

The “Jewish vote” over the last century

The New Neo Posted on by

While doing research for my recent post on Jews and Obama, I came across a site showing trends in Jewish voting in presidential elections from 1916 till now (I assume it’s based mostly on exit polling, although that’s not clearly stated).

The trends are easier to see if you look at this chart from the site:

So at the beginning of the century the Jewish vote was relatively evenly split between the two parties, at least as compared to today. The Roosevelt years saw the consolidation of the Jewish vote firmly and overwhelmingly in the camp of the Democratic Party. But it hasn’t always stayed there. The presidents who made the strongest inroads have been Eisenhower and Reagan, and Nixon in his second term but not his first, with a blip for Bush senior in his first term but not his second run.

I haven’t found any data to explain these things, although I bet someone has done a study somewhere. I’m not sure about the earlier part of the century, but the Eisenhower phenomenon could be accounted for by his WWII war hero status. For Nixon’s second term, his opponent McGovern was an especially weak one and Nixon’s victory a bona fide landslide, so Jews were probably part of that general trend. Jews liked Reagan to the tune of over 30% (in 1980, almost 40%), a level that approached their Republican support back in the early part of the century. That carried over to a certain extent when Bush I first ran for president, but by the time he ran again their allegiance was very firmly in Democrat Clinton’s camp.

Since then, there’s been almost no change in their very high level of support for the Democratic candidates. Jews voted 78% for Obama in 2008, which has been typical of their vote for Democratic candidates in recent years. The question is: will they be disaffected enough in 2012 to go for Romney in Reaganesque numbers? That would only require their reaching levels between 30 and 40 percent, because the last time the Jewish vote for a Republican presidential candidate was above 40% was back in 1920.

Andrew McCarthy: “They really don’t want you to see what is in those documents.”

The New Neo Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy is often my go-to guy on legal issues. He’s very sharp on the law and terrorism, which is what you might expect from the lawyer who prosecuted the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing back in the 90s.

McCarthy writes of the latest developments in Fast and Furious:

The issue in F&F is not the withholding of DOJ documents. The issue is the reckless provision of an arsenal fit for an army to violent cartels, quite predictably resulting in the murders of possibly hundreds of people including at least one United States law enforcement officer…

If this were a Republican administration, the press would long ago have made the Department’s obstruction of Congress a five-alarm scandal…But while Holder has been in the eye of what little storm there was, it has always been the case that F&F is Obama’s scandal. Holder has never done anything other than implement Obama’s policies and manage relations with Congress as Obama wished them to be conducted…The last thing Obama wanted to do, with the November election looming, was resort to the Nixon strategy…And, again, if the Obama administration’s story was true, they would want to release the documents that support it.

They really don’t want you to see what is in those documents.

McCarthy’s argument makes plenty of sense, and if I had to bet I’d say he’s correct.

However, I also think that Obama has a history of arrogance and secrecy. Yes, there may be a bunch of smoking guns he’s covering up, but I think it’s also a personality trait of his to say “it’s none of your business” when asked to divulge information (that’s the “secrecy” part). And he thinks he can get away with it, since he’s done it before many times (that’s the “arrogance” part). What’s more, he may be trying to see how far he can push his power in general, and executive privilege is an important tool in that endeavor.