I know it's about being in a signing group, and it doesn't fit exactly, but this Statler Brothers' refrain (from "Thank You World") bascially sums up how I feel about having volunteered for the Obama Campaign:

I may not ever stand like Stonewall Jackson stood
But standing on that stage to me is just as good
And I may never be a heavy or a great
But you've given me the strenght the strenght to pull me weight
Oh for the part I sing is truly part of me
And it does its part to lock the other parts in key
And it does its part to pull to pull that sweet applause
So thank you world for lettin' me contribute to the cause

Thank's Barack for letting me contribute to the Cause.

--EZE

foot.

Where is the news media on this?  Perhaps McCains second favorite reason why people should elect him (did you know he was a POW?) is that, the first time a spending bill comes across his desk with pork, he will take out his veto pen, he will make them famous, and you will know their names.

Except that he won't, and he just showed that in voting for the pork-stuffed bailout/rescue plan.  Each member of Congress has, in effect, the exact same choice with respect to each piece of legislation that comes for a floor vote as the president:  vote up or vote down.  Congress tried once to give the President the opportunity to veto specific line items in spending legislation, but the Supreme Court struck it down (at the behest of Rudi G.) in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).  (During a primary debate, McCain promised to bring back the line item veto.  Then someone on a major news station pointed out that it was stuck down as unconstitutional, and he hasn't brought it up again.)  Thus, under the Presentment Clause, a President can either sign the bill -- as hammered out by Congress -- into law, or kill it.  There is no third option.

And that's why McCain's vote on Wednesday is so telling.  The bill was full of pork (by his own admission), and he voted yes.  Why?  Because, according to McCain, there were bigger issues at stake in this legislation.

But that is precisely why presidents sign into law bills with ear marks and other provisions they don't like.  And there is no reason to think McCain will reach a different conclusion when faced with a similar choice in the White House.  So the next time he pulls out his sharpie (as if any president has ever signed or vetoed any law with a sharpie -- wouldn't it run through?), I really hope someone is there to call bull-hockey-mom on that pledge.

I'd like to address how it utterly horrifies me that Palin hasn't heard of Marbury or Brown or Bush v. Gore or Dred Scott or Plessy or Miranda or Giddeon (holy cow Batman!  Where they hell was she in middle school history?).  But I'll do that later.  Now, I want to grind an axe about people who say "Roe v. Wade should be overruled," and in particular politicians who run on that platform  So here's a message to Sarah Palin, and all politicians who think overruling Roe v.  Wade needs to be a top priority:

Roe v.  Wade was overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).   That's right, it hasn't been the law since 1992.  The last year of the George H. W. Bush Administration.  Same year as the Rodney King trial -- the first one. 

I'm actually surprised you didn't know that, because Justice Scalia, who you adore, made a big stink about it.  You see, the controlling plurality (it's complicated, just trust me that three Justices controlled the outcome) replaced the trimester test in Roe with a new "undue burden" test.  And in so doing, the plurality relied heavily the principle of stare decisis (that is, the precidential weight accorded prior rulings).  And your favorite Justice -- Scalia -- opened up a can on them for doing so, asserting that their hypocrisy was "really more than one should have to bear. "  See 505 U.S. at 985 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

So, what's the point?  That I have a law degree?  No.  I do.  And I'm not apologizing for that.  But that's not the point. 

The point, is that if you are going to use an issue as a wedge in the national political discourse, you ought to have at least a rudimentary understanding of it.  But you don't.  Instead, you're focusing on a decision that has not been law since the Dream Team stormed Barcelona.  Attack the undue burden test if you want.  Lord knows there is plenty to attack there.  (Indeed, given the Court's current composition, the undue burden test's squishy nature gives pro-life advocacy groups a huge opportunity to render the right to abortion a right in name only -- if it isn't already.)  But please, for the love of god, learn something about the law in this area before you run on a platform of changing it.

Regards,

eze

I suppose after the McCain campain declared the debate a victory before McCain had committed to attend, I should not be surprised by the ability of the right to delude itself.  But this is somewhat startling, given what the independent voters had to say:

There were no knockout blows in this debate, but McCain won on points--a surprise for people like me who expected a crushing performance from the much more silver-tongued Barack Obama.

Never let the facts get into the way of a good right-wing narrative.  I can't wait to hear the Repugs boast how McCain destroyed Obama in the EV count by garnering more than 200 (albeit fewer than 270) votes.

You be the judge, but as I see it, the only difference between this and a Sarah Palin interview is the part at the end where the questioner calls BS:

Richard:  Maybe. I guess you should have called.

Tommy Boy:  I did call, earlier, when...
using the phone.

R:  Earlier? When was that?
T:  Er... later... When, when... then... I...
ah.., I left a message.

R:  A message?
What number did you call?

 
T:  Two, four, niner, five, six, seven, eigh . . .                   
                  
R:  I can't hear you. You're trailing off.
And did i catch a "niner" in there?  What Were you calling from, a walkie-talkie?
                  
T:  No, it was cordless.
                  
R:  You know what? Don't.
Not here, not now.

Now compare: 

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Erie, ain't it?

George Will to McCain:  Obama will quickly shed his inexperience, but you'll always be a hot head.

I guess this isn't a total surprise because Will just last week the best he could muster was a tired divided government argument, which was as transparent as it was desperate (where was that in 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, or 2006?).  Still, he practically commands his readers to vote for Obama (albeit as a lesser of two evils) because McCain and his Queen-of-Hearts temper cannot be trusted.  

Ladies and gentlemen:  George Will and his "divided government" argument.

I'm sure he said the same thing in 1996, 2002, and 2006, right?

Shameless.

Dear Redstate.com,

I wondered for a while why I felt compelled to read the drivel on your site.  I just get mad and the utter lack of any connection to reality.  And I'm not going to post because, you know, I'm not giving you my info.

Then I found it.  What I'd been looking for without knowing.  A path to an almost nirvana-like state of relaxation.  I now know my candidate is a lock, because you've been reduced to doing pieces on how he is "Conventional, bitter, and graceless."  It's like it's already February, and you're settling in as the opposition party (oh, am I'm going to enjoy that).

Thank you redstate.com!  Thank you! 

--eze

PS The OBAMA campaign is "unsure of its own organizing principle"?  Really?  Remind me again which campaign is going to clean up the corruption on Wall Street by getting government out of the way?  Which candate is for economic regulation "when it's truly needed"?  Amazing.

The McCain camp was just quoted on NPR News as saying that, although McCain is generally against regulation, he is in favor of it "when it's truly needed."  Huh? 

As I've <a href = http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/the-market-collapse-was-the-go.php>argued</a href>, bust is an integral part of the unrestrained free-market that Republicans have been pushing since at least 1980.  Thus, their natural response to the current woes ought to be "so?  This is the way it is supposed to work.  Suck it up!"  Thus, in a down market, they shouldn't be rushing to regulation; they should be telling people to hold on for a wild ride.

Liberals, on the other hand, think the market functions better when regulated so that the highs are lower and the lows are higher.  (I recognize that, rhetoric aside, this is largely a difference of degree not kind; I'm no Marxist, but I don't subscribe to the Chicago school either.)

But whatever your world view, I can see no principled reason why it should change based on the market.  Unless you are willing to say you've been proven wrong and reform your ways, the ups and downs of the market should not change your fundamental view of how markets ought to be regulated.  Markets go up and down, so if you have a coherent theory, it should take account for that.

That's why the McCain camp's comment struck me.  If McCain or his advisors had a coherent model, it would not fundamentally change now that the market is down.  They would just be telling you to hang on (which is what I understood McCain's "fundamentals" refrain to mean).  For his part, Obama was for regulation even when the market was up because his model told him to be weary of the downside as investing and borrowing got out of hand.  But McCain's model, apparently, shifts based on the market.  He wants no regulation when it's up; he wants regulation it's down.  And that exposes his model's greatest weakness:  he doesn't have one; he's just guessing.

It's early in this crisis, but I fear that the Dems and liberals will miss the larger point in trying to blame the Republicans for the current economic woes:  The economic downturn -- the collapse of massive financial institutions and the loss of savings, houses, and jobs -- is not a mistake.  It's not an accident.  It's the point of unrestrained free market economics.

The whole idea of an unregulated market is to allow growth through destruction.  Those who take the right risks are rewarded.  Those who take the wrong ones are dangerous, and ought to be wiped out.  Invest in Lehman Brothers?  Buy a house in an up market?  Invest in subprime mortgages?  Good riddance to bad rubish.

Thus, far from a set-back, the current financial crisis is the goal that the Republican party has been working for since at least 1980.  That's why the president called this a "correction."  It is.  And if we keep these policies, we can expect more corrections, on a more regular basis in the years to come. 

Mazel Tov!

I'm sure that the Democrats will hurl lots of blame at the Republican party.  And if history is any guide (and if there is a God), it will pay off in November.  But let's not call it a mistake.  Let's make sure everyone knows that this has been their goal for quite some time.  And maybe, just maybe, we can kill unrestrained, free-market conservatism -- at least for a generation or two.