Erick Erickson's Blog, page 57

By Even Academic Standards, David Dewhurst is "centrist"

In the race for U.S. Senate in Texas, the conservative candidate clearly is Ted Cruz. His record of fighting for conservative ideals is clear, as I have noted before. Senator DeMint has endorsed him, as has Senator Mike Lee, the Club for Growth and a number of other important conservative voices.

But the establishment and conventional wisdom remains behind Lt. Gov Dewhurst as the favorite – despite the fact he has shown relatively poor polling, mediocre fundraising and is relying on his personal wealth to try to persuade Texans he is actually conservative. But the truth is hard to hide. I have pointed out before that Dewhurst is a moderate in the mold of Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Thus, we affectionately refer to him as Dewcrist.

Everyone in Austin knows DewCrist is a moderate. Everyone in Austin knows he stands in the way of conservative policy. Everyone in Austin knows he would be the first guy in the U.S. Senate to join the "club" and saddle up to Mitch McConnell to be a "team player," no matter what principle dictates or what the people of Texas actually want.

But now, even academic research is making this crystal clear. In the Texas Tribune, Rice University Professor Mark Jones explains his rather detailed analysis of Dewcrist and his ideological placement among those in the Texas Senate, the body over which he presides as Lt. Governor. Jones describes him as follows:

"Is Dewhurst a "moderate?" Yes, if by that one means that he would appear to be significantly less conservative than approximately one-third of the Republican delegation in the Texas Senate."

and

"The [data] reveals a Dewhurst-run Senate where the senators who enjoyed the most success were in the moderate and center wings of the Republican Party. Bills opposed by these senators rarely were passed — a sharp contrast with both their more conservative colleagues as well as the most liberal members of the Democratic delegation."

Reports of cheering from Mitch McConnell's office just came in…

The problem with the race for Senate in Texas is that no one is focusing on it and too many people believe Dewcrist is actually conservative because he can hide behind Governor Perry's conservative leadership and he is ostensibly pro-life. But when push comes to shove, Dewcrist has consistently been a "centrist" – which is not-too-tricky-code for future establishment hack in Washington if we don't stand up for the only real conservative in the race, Ted Cruz.

The World According to David Brock

David Brock says he got famous for calling Anita Hill "a slut."

That is his own description of how he became famous.

Compounding the irony, David Brock says Rush Limbaugh made him famous. That's right folks, the head of Media Matters For America, on a personal quest to destroy Rush Limbaugh after spectacularly failing to do the same to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Anita Hill, and more, actually said, "Limbaugh was making me famous for calling Anita Hill a slut."

If you haven't paid attention these past few months, from the Daily Caller investigation into David Brock to David Brock trying to get Rush off the air, David Brock really thinks the world revolves around David Brock. And David Brock tries to set up as much spin as he can to try to make you think the world revolves around David Brock.

In fact, the reality is David Brock has a self-inflated sense of self-worth. He surrounds himself with bodyguards convinced someone somewhere wants to do him harm while he maligns the reputations of others, dabbled in illegal drugs, seemingly suffers from some level of instability, and felt obligated to pay his ex-boyfriend $850,000.00 to keep the ex-boyfriend quiet about Media Matters.

It's no wonder, with all the stories pouring out about how pathetic David Brock actually is, that David Brock is trying to divert attention to Rush Limbaugh. But you know what? Not only is the effort against Limbaugh failing, it is failing badly.

Consequently, Brock is shifting gears — bragging about the money he is raising, which he actually isn't, and trying to take credit for Cumulus Media potentially replacing the Rush Limbaugh Show with the Mike Huckabee Show, which so far hasn't panned out.

First, let's look at the failing Limbaugh campaign.

David Brock wants you to know he can take out Rush Limbaugh. His effort has been so effective Rush Limbaugh's ratings are up pretty significantly.

But it is not just that. As I told you would happen, new advertisers are filling the void left by other advertisers fleeing. The hit to Rush's bottom line really never happened. Not only that, the much ballyhooed memo from Cumulus directing stations to move barter advertisers around Limbaugh's show has been recinded.

On Monday, the 600 or so radio stations that air Limbaugh's program were told by his syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, to resume running "barter" ads during his program. Stations are required to run these ads in exchange for paying discounted fees to Premiere to air Limbaugh's show. Premiere, which is owned by radio giant Clear Channel Communications, had suspended the "barter" requirement for two weeks in a move widely seen as a way to give advertisers a chance to lie low while Limbaugh was in the news.

So what is Media Matters left to do? Try to take credit for Mike Huckabee's show potentially replacing Limbaugh. Follow along here.

There is no doubt Media Matters and MoveOn.org are working together on this project. The Washington Post notes that MoveOn.org wants Rush off 180 stations. Media Matters is running an ad campaign in seven markets to aid in that effort.

What they are not pointing out is that Cumulus Media expects to have Mike Huckabee in 140 markets with an initial launch of 50 markets. As I reported last week, Media Matters is running anti-Rush ads on several Cumulus stations that are thought likely to replace Rush Limbaugh with Mike Hucakbee if only to save the stations money. Huckabee, a Cumulus property and a new show, would be vastly cheaper than Rush Limbaugh.

When Huckabee's show expands and Cumuls begins the replacement process, MoveOn.org and Media Matters will undoubtedly take credit for something they had absolutely nothing to do with. It is typical David Brock.

But wait . . . there's more.

It's not just the craptacular effort to get Rush off the air, David Brock wants you to think he is a fundraising machine. According to the New York Times, he raised $23 million for his various projects in 2010. New York Magazine says the same. He wants to be the guy who takes down Fox, the guy who takes down Rush, and be forgotten as the guy who never took down the Clintons, Anita Hill, or really anyone else.

There's just one problem.

According to the Media Matters for America (MMFA) and related Media Matters Action Network (MMAN) 2010 990′s, their 2010 fundraising was about $14.6 million. The 501(c)3 raised $13.2 million and the 501(c)4 raised $1.4 million. That leaves them almost $9 million short of the $23 million David Brock bragged about (assuming they raised nothing after Brock claimed $23 million in the November 2010 New York Times article).

David Brock also has "Equality Matters", but that seems to be a project within MMAN, which did not launch until December 2010, and the Progressive Talent Initiative, but that is also a project within Media Matters, not a separate group. And then there's American Bridge….but that raised $0 in 2010.

In the 990s, a Democratic fundraising shop, Bonner Group, is credited with all, or almost all, fundraising for Media Matters. Isn't David Brock supposed to be some kind of "legendary" fundraiser? Just get a load of the self-indulgent quotes from Jason Zengerle's New York Magazine article.

"With doors opened, Brock got busy with what has emerged as perhaps his greatest talent: persuading rich liberals to give him their money."

"Brock's fund-raising prowess is the stuff of legend—and some mystery—on the left. He explains it as simply a question of having the right attitude."

"But Brock's greatest fund-­raising tool is his personal story…"

"Brock received the news of Beck's departure just as he was about to walk into a meeting with potential donors at a hedge fund in midtown."

"In an interview with the New York Times, he boasted of his fund-raising record with Media Matters and predicted even greater success for American Bridge…"

Of course all this bragging may get David Brock and Media Matters into trouble.

Consider these similarly self-indulgent quotes from a New York Times profile of David Brock.

"Certain to set off debate, however, is that Mr. Brock appears to be positioning his new organization so that fund-raising consultants can raise money for Democratic-oriented media efforts not just through American Bridge but also via one of the nonprofit organizations Mr. Brock currently runs, Media Matters Action Network, which does not disclose its donors."

"The action network, which tracks conservative politicians and advocacy organizations, is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group and is set to take on an expanded role in the 2012 elections, including potentially running television ads, according to an internal draft concept paper about American Bridge's and Media Matter Action Network's plans obtained by The New York Times."

Based on the second quote, shouldn't every candidate Media Matters supports have to answer to Alan Dershowitz over Media Matters' well documented anti-semetism?

Adding those quotes to what the Daily Caller and others have turned up, won't the IRS be interested into Media Matters' tax status?

Between David Brock hyping his own importance and his fundraising numbers with nothing to really show for either, surely Democratic donors who've been far more willing to hold their action groups accountable than the right will start questioning him. And surely the IRS will too.

Morning Briefing for March 30, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

March 30, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. The World According to David Brock

2. A Word About Charles Fried

3. Brave New Foundation Needs Some Brave New Basic Phone Training

4. American Majority Action Unveils Killer GOTV Digital Technology

———————————————————————-

1. The World According to David Brock

David Brock says he got famous for calling Anita Hill "a slut."

That is his own description of how he became famous.

Compounding the irony, David Brock says Rush Limbaugh made him famous. That's right folks, the head of Media Matters For America, on a personal quest to destroy Rush Limbaugh after spectacularly failing to do the same to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Anita Hill, and more, actually said, "Limbaugh was making me famous for calling Anita Hill a slut."

If you haven't paid attention these past few months, from the Daily Caller investigation into David Brock to David Brock trying to get Rush off the air, David Brock really thinks the world revolves around David Brock. And David Brock tries to set up as much spin as he can to try to make you think the world revolves around David Brock.

In fact, the reality is David Brock has a self-inflated sense of self-worth. He surrounds himself with bodyguards convinced someone somewhere wants to do him harm while he maligns the reputations of others, dabbled in illegal drugs, seemingly suffers from some level of instability, and felt obligated to pay his ex-boyfriend $850,000.00 to keep the ex-boyfriend quiet about Media Matters.

It's no wonder, with all the stories pouring out about how pathetic David Brock actually is, that David Brock is trying to divert attention to Rush Limbaugh. But you know what? Not only is the effort against Limbaugh failing, it is failing badly.

Consequently, Brock is shifting gears — bragging about the money he is raising, which he actually isn't, and trying to take credit for Cumulus Media potentially replacing the Rush Limbaugh Show with the Mike Huckabee Show, which so far hasn't panned out.

First, let's look at the failing Limbaugh campaign.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. A Word About Charles Fried

Charles Fried has suddenly become a very popular fellow on the Left. The former Reagan Solicitor General and Bill Weld appointee to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is being touted by the Washington Post's in-house left-wing activists Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein, as well as ThinkProgress and Media Matters and its frenetic professional tweeters Eric Boehlert and Oliver Willis over Professor Fried's support for the constitutionality of Obamacare. Dahlia Lithwick went further, using Prof. Fried's prediction of an 8-1 decision as evidence that "[t]he conservative legal elites don't believe in the merits of this challenge". It's not surprising that these folks are in such a rush to get the cover of a former Reagan lawyer to restore their talking point – now in tatters after a week of serious, sober and probing questioning from the Supreme Court – that only an extremist would think there is any constitutional issue at all with Obamacare. But there are some things they're not telling you about Charles Fried.

Now, let me preface this by saying that I have a lot of respect for Prof. Fried. He was my constitutional law professor and probably the best teacher I had in law school, a brilliant man who had taught just about every area of law under the sun and was especially talented at bringing together the strands of disparate areas of the law. I read his book about his days as the SG before I started law school, and I respected his willingness – as a guy who is not pro-life – to argue, twice, for overturning Roe v Wade. He was also the faculty adviser for the Law School Republicans, which I headed for a time. Prof. Fried has indeed been, in the past, a longstanding member of the GOP legal establishment; he testified in favor of John Roberts' Supreme Court confirmation, and in 2006 wrote a NY Times op-ed defending his former deputy, Samuel Alito, as "not a lawless zealot but a careful lawyer with the professionalism to give legally sound but unwelcome advice" and "a person who can tell the difference between the law and his own political predilections."

But if you think brilliant people can't be horribly wrong, you have not spent much time studying lawyers and the law. And if you've been reading the left-wing activists, you might not have learned that the 76-year-old Prof. Fried has not only been a vigorous defender of Obamacare who famously testified that the federal government could mandate that you buy vegetables and join a gym, he also voted for President Obama and wrote him what amounted to a political love letter last summer, wrote a book in 2010 with his son which he characterized as showing that the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policies "broke the law" and were "disgusting and terrible and degrading," and has been a vociferous critic of the Tea Party.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Brave New Foundation Needs Some Brave New Basic Phone Training

Meet Jesse Lava, campaign director – campaign director – at Brave New Foundation: progressive, comedy savant, and first-time user of phones. If you've never heard of the man or the group, well, no surprise there. But they do exist, and they are hilarious.

Oh Jesse, you so crazy! They eat babies? YOU ARE A COMIC GENIUS! SOMEONE GET THIS MAN AN HBO SPECIAL RIGHT NOW!

The fake sincerity, the outburst of laughter releasing his obvious nervousness … you'd almost think it was a job interview or an audition or an 11 year old who just asked if your refrigerator was running. I'll hand it to him, though; he did manage not to babble on about the Kochtopus or the Illuminati.

Tonight, Brave New Foundation is debuting a "documentary" titled Koch Brothers Exposed, which if the trailer is any indication, will consist in the main of accusations that the Kochs have lots of money, and that you should probably be upset about that. (George Soros could not be reached for comment.) You can read "sincere" Jesse discussing the premiere here. Just don't bother trying to click on his link to the film, it doesn't work. First day on the internet, too, one might assume.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. American Majority Action Unveils Killer GOTV Digital Technology

As a movement, we have enjoyed unparalleled growth over the past few decades, particularly, over the past few years with the advent of the Tea Party. We have more conservative thinkers, writers, talk radio hosts, and organizations than Ronald Reagan would have ever imagined. Most importantly, we have more passion and grassroots activism than ever. However, the most direct way to affect conservative change is to win elections; both primary and general. Writers, thinkers, and speakers help galvanize and unify the conservative movement, but we cannot win elections on superior ideas and arguments alone.

The seminal ingredient to electoral success has not changed; it all boils down to turning out the vote and establishing an efficient and effective ground game to connect with the most consequential voters in a given district. What has changed is electronic communication. The only way to run an effective campaign in this era of mobile devices and social media is to create the perfect synergy between the venues of communication, the voter information, and the GOTV operation.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Morning Briefing for March 29, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

For March 29, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. The Republican Party is playing a dangerous game

2. Liberals, conservatives, values and how we perceive each other

3. Birthdays, and Dinosaurs, and Slavery, Oh My!

4. Strange Bedfellows: Unions Protesting For The Right To Target Private Residences Get Tea Party Approval

5. Senator Obama Was Correct – The Ex-Im Bank Is Corporate Welfare

———————————————————————-

1. The Republican Party is playing a dangerous game

There's a lot to like about Paul Ryan's budget proposal. It cuts some spending. It flattens the tax code down to just two individual marginal tax rates. It also includes some innovative policies designed to halt the unsustainable growth of health care entitlement spending. However, on balance, the budget is disappointing for fiscal conservatives for two main reasons: It waives the spending restraint that was agreed to in last year's debt limit deal, and it doesn't balance the budget until 2040. Broken promises and unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see are neither good policy nor a good campaign rallying cry.

Last year, an agreement was reached in which Republicans gave President Obama a massive increase in the debt ceiling, in exchange for promised spending cuts that supposedly had "real teeth." As part of the deal, Congressman Ryan and most Republicans voted to require an annual spending cap and $110 billion in automatic spending cuts for next year – otherwise known as "sequestration" – if the so-called "super-committee" failed to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Since the predictable collapse of the super-committee, the House GOP should have been working toward a budget proposal that allows for the sequester to take place for the coming year. Such a budget would include the $110 billion in reductions. Ryan's budget achieves vastly less. It contains $19 billion in discretionary savings and, at most, $53 billion in cuts to mandatory spending — $38 billion short. Thus, it leaves House Republicans breaking the terms of the deal they agreed to just seven months ago.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Liberals, conservatives, values and how we perceive each other

Another day, another book I need to buy and hopefully read some day. In the March 21st NYT, Nicholas Kristof reviews a new book: "The Righteous Mind". In it, author Jonathan Haidt discusses some original research that investigates some key values held by conservatives and liberals – and how these two groups perceive each other on these values. I have long been interested in why Republicans and Democrats believe as they do, and this type of research on values zeroes in on this question.

A couple of key observations emerge. First, the author points out how both conservatives and liberals adhere to values that are formed around a moral code, but conservatives follow some additional core values that liberals do not.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Birthdays, and Dinosaurs, and Slavery, Oh My!

Recently, the New York City public school system put out guidelines to providers of test materials to the district. The guidelines included a list of naughty words that should not be included in the materials, so as not to stress out, offend, or cause boo-boos to the children of the city, who are mainly made of glass it would seem. Among the no good, very bad words were "birthday", "dinosaur", "Halloween", and references to junk food, swimming pools, and computers.

This, dear friends, is unarguably a good thing. Take, for example, birthdays. Did you know that some people don't celebrate birthdays? And since they don't celebrate them, they would obviously be emotionally distressed to consider that other people do. Tsk, tsk. Likewise, Halloween might evoke paganism, and everyone knows school children are vehemently and actively opposed to such talk, ever since the Great Pagan and Gradeschooler War of nineteen aught seven.

Swimming pools and computers, you would imagine, are banned because some people don't have one or both of these things, and might therefore forget what two plus two equals when presented with the horrible reality that some people do.

Now yes, I know that computers are actually IN many classrooms. But that is different. Because.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Strange Bedfellows: Unions Protesting For The Right To Target Private Residences Get Tea Party Approval

Union thugs protesting outside the homes of their targets has become a weapon more and more unions have added to their already-large arsenal. Now that the State of Georgia may become the first state to outlaw the offensive tactic, oddly enough, unions are getting support from an unlikely source–the Tea Party Patriots.

Last year, when 45,000 union members struck telephone carrier Verizon, IBEW union radicals showed up outside the home of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam's House causing a disturbance in McAdam's neighborhood (see video below). In another incident, up to 3,000 CWA protesters conducted a mock funeral outside the home of Verizon's chairman.

Though it shouldn't be necessary for any legislature to even have to consider the protection of private residences from protesters, these incidents (and others like it) have drawn the attention of Georgia's legislature, which has moved to pass Senate Bill 469 to prohibit the targeting of individuals at their private residences.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Senator Obama Was Correct – The Ex-Im Bank Is Corporate Welfare

On September 22, 2008, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) sounded like a conservative in the below speech. Candidate for President Obama railed against programs "that don't work" like a "reading program that hasn't improved our children's reading." This talk was music to the ears of independent and conservative leaning democratic voters who don't like government waste.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy

"The left is pretty sure if they scream partisanship loudly enough, no Republican will stand up and defend the Court as the left assaults its integrity."

Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o'clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.

As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,

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.

It was the quote heard round the world. It is what the tea party movement, libertarians, conservatives, and so many private citizens have been saying. It was an expression of what every legal scholar on television has pooh-poohed as the troglodyte rhetoric of plebeians not educated enough to understand their own founding compact.

That Justice Kennedy expressed something so obvious to so many Americans that so many well educated legal analysts have mocked for two years as an outmoded view of the constitution put forward only by hicks, rubes, and the racist middle class tea partiers not cool enough to defecate on police cars like the Occupy Wall Street hipsters should deeply, deeply trouble every radio station, newspaper, and television news network along with the American people.

Just how out of touch are the people the news media relies on as legal experts used to help form both their and their audiences' opinions? More so, is it not abundantly obvious that legal experts let their own partisanship shape their opinions?

All of this, however, overshadows a more important issue — how the hell did a constitutional, democratic republic come to depend on the whims of one man in a black robe who nobody ever elected to anything?

Two years ago, Jan Crawford of CBS News noted the President, in his State of the Union, deviating from modern precedent in those speeches to lash out at the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on — including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy — while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.

Shortly thereafter the Democrats, without a single Republican vote, passed Obamacare.

That Justice Kennedy yesterday raised a point that has been raised by so many non-lawyers is irrelevant to how the Supreme Court rules. All that is relevant is the President's insult two years ago. Why?

This morning the New York Times reports that "many legal scholars, including some conservatives, have been predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold the 2010 health care overhaul." In a profile of Randy Barnett yesterday in the New York Times, the paper reported there as well that "many of his [Randy Barnett's] colleagues, on both the left and the right, dismissed the idea [that Obamacare is unconstitutional] as ridiculous — and still do." See also this Politico story also pushing the Democratic line that Chief Justice Roberts is in danger of his own Bush v. Gore. This is precisely the Democratic spin and you can see which outlets are mouthpieces for the Democrats by those so quick to push the partisan line against the Court.

Legal scholars the media pays attention to — who are typically on the left, though with a few token like minded "conservatives" — all thought that, based on their jurisprudential biases, Obamacare would be constitutional. About the only left leaning constitutional scholar in America who agreed with the tea party movement and, consequently, with Anthony Kennedy was Barack Obama in 2008.

Justice Kennedy, raising the same point raised by so many on the right going back to the 1990′s when Republicans originally suggested the individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare (yes, many conservatives and libertarians opposed it then too), stunned the legal community yesterday because he deviated from a liberal echo chamber.

Consequently, his deviation can only be explained away by partisan politics, not legal jurisprudence. That so many liberal legal scholars disagree with Kennedy is proof he is a partisan. Already the White House and Democratic operatives are screeching that this is just like Bush vs. Gore all over again. They do not presume that the liberal justices are partisan — only the conservatives. On this argument of partisanship, as Steve Hayes notes, it is striking that the presumption in the Obamacare arguments is that one or more conservative justices will bolt left. In other words, the liberal justices are locked in and the conservatives are persuadable. How exactly does that make the conservative justices partisan and the liberal justices pure?

In fact, it is both projection by the left, which makes everything from Trayvon Martin's tragic death to a Supreme Court oral argument political, and an argument designed by the left to cook the books in their favor, calculating the GOP will not engage in a fight over the partisanship of the Supreme Court because the right does not want to revisit Bush v. Gore. The left is pretty sure if they scream partisanship loudly enough, no Republican will stand up and defend the Court as the left assaults its integrity.

But they miss one thing. A sizable majority of Americans agree with Justice Kennedy. They are also not helped by widespread agreement on the left and right today that the Solicitor General of the United States had an atrocious performance and Paul Clement, arguing for the states, hit every ball out of the park assisted by some terribly insipid questioning from Sonia Sotomayor.

As partisans on the left start screaming that the conservatives have politicized the federal bench in a way they did not by attacking Robert Bork or some such nonsense, they ignore both their partisan attacks on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, etc. and their intellectually dishonest legal progeny derived from Roe vs. Wade. That case, still a source of conflict in America, is no longer even defended as intellectually rigorous by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She may like its holding, but not how that holding was reasoned.

Every time the left wins an argument expanding the meaning of the constitution, the Court somehow got it right. Every time the left loses an argument over the constitution, the Court somehow became politicized. And while the right says the same on the opposite cases there is a fundamental difference.

The right's position on constitutional jurisprudence boiled down to its essence is that every man and woman in America should be able to read the constitution and have a fair understanding of it and how government is supposed to work. One cannot read the constitution and legitimately understand exactly how an abortion right is extrapolated out of the Bill of Rights. Likewise, one cannot read the constitution and understand how a Congress of limited powers can compel any person to purchase a product he does not want.

But liberal legal scholars so stunned at Justice Kennedy's point favor a constitution where the public must hire them and their brethren to bow before men and women in black robes offering up prayers and petitions that our black robed masters divine from the text of the constitution some new right or government power no man on the street can see.

We have complicated our tax code, our regulations, and our legal system. In each we must now pay self-appointed experts trained in the art of gobbledegook to parse words, divine intent, and lobby for exceptions that prove rules.

Our nation is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of elites who interpret those laws for us. It has all led to a very logical place.

In placing our constitution in the hands of a black robed elite who can divine from thin air powers, rights, and duties neither contemplated nor easily extrapolated from the constitution, our republic has become a kingdom. Our king is Anthony Kennedy. Every argument advanced is advanced with him in mind. On every major issue he is the decisive vote.

Put bluntly, the constitutional integrity of our republic has been ceded to one man in the third branch of our federal government. It makes him more powerful than the democratically elected Congress and President. It is not a sign that our system is too partisan. It is a sign that our system is broken in a fundamental way.

But the dirty little secret is that while legal experts and scholars may agree the system is broken, they only think so when Anthony Kennedy disagrees with them.

Morning Briefing for March 28, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

March 28, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy

2. The Obama Administration Outlaws New Coal-Fired Powerplants

3. Coal policy could swing the election

———————————————————————-

1. Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy

Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o'clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.

As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,

"[T]he 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."

It was the quote heard round the world. It is what the tea party movement, libertarians, conservatives, and so many private citizens have been saying. It was an expression of what nearly every legal scholar on television has pooh-poohed as the troglodyte rhetoric of plebeians not educated enough to understand their own founding compact.

That Justice Kennedy expressed something so obvious to so many Americans that so many well educated legal analysts have mocked for two years as an outmoded view of the constitution put forward only by hicks, rubes, and the racist middle class tea partiers not cool enough to defecate on police cars like the Occupy Wall Street hipsters should deeply, deeply trouble every radio station, newspaper, and television news network along with the American people.

Just how out of touch are the people the news media relies on as legal experts used to help form both their and their audiences' opinions? More so, is it not abundantly obvious that legal experts let their own partisanship shape their opinions?

All of this, however, overshadows a more important issue — how the hell did a constitutional, democratic republic come to depend on the whims of one man in a black robe who nobody ever elected to anything?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Obama Administration Outlaws New Coal-Fired Powerplants

Yesterday the Obama Administration effectively outlawed coal as a fuel source and it underscores the importance of Congress severely circumscribing the authority of regulatory agencies.

By outlawing new coal-fired electric generation plants and ignoring nuclear power, the Administration has set in motion a plan to make the nation dependent upon natural gas and a mishmash of politically correct but non-viable sources such as solar and wind as older plants are decommissioned. Essentially, Obama has done via regulatory means what it could not accomplish in Congress: to set the trajectory for exorbitant electricity prices in the service of reducing "greenhouse gasses."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Coal policy could swing the election

Given the the administration's recent moves on coal power, I couldn't help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.

A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.

Here's a simple chart of the closeness of a state's 2008 Presidential election result vs the state's coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you'd like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Reviewing the Day in the Supreme Court #EERS

I'm on three hours tonight joined by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. We will review the Supreme Court oral arguments from today and what Anthony Kennedy said, what Jeffrey Toobin said, and what James Carville said to Wolf Blitzer and me.

You can listen live right here and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik

One the arguments Mitt Romney's opponents have against him was defined by Romney's own campaign's "etch-a-sketch" comment. No one seems to know what Mitt Romney really stands for and the etch-a-sketch comment gave a visual image, created by Romney's own campaign, to drive home the lack of trust in Mitt Romney.

With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama's opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality.

Speaking before a live mic to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama explained to him that he and the Russians could find common ground, but Vladimir Putin would have to give President Obama "space" until after the election. Medvedev questions what President Obama meant about "space." President Obama responded, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

Just as Romney's words reinforce people's fears that he will say or do anything to get elected, President Obama's words reinforce people's fears that should he win re-election, he will say and do whatever the hell he wants since the voters won't be able to toss him out of office.

More than that though, contrast Barack Obama dealing with the latest iteration of Russian thugocracy to Ronald Reagan dealing with the communists. In Reykjavik, Reagan was willing to walk away from the table to preserve his promises. In Seoul, Barack Obama just wants to appear to walk away from the table until after re-election. Reagan stood against the communists in Russia. Barack Obama is perfectly willing to stand with the Russian thugocracy, but they need to give him space until after the election.

If Republicans need a defining theme of who Barack Obama really is, that theme is increasingly clear. He is a man who wants it both ways on every issue, which ultimately makes the nation a loser.

Morning Briefing for March 27, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

March 27, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik

2. Handicapping Health Care

3. FROM RICK SANTORUM: RomneyCare Inspires ObamaCare, But Not America

———————————————————————-

1. Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik

One the arguments Mitt Romney's opponents have against him was defined by Romney's own campaign's "etch-a-sketch" comment. No one seems to know what Mitt Romney really stands for and the etch-a-sketch comment gave a visual image, created by Romney's own campaign, to drive home the lack of trust in Mitt Romney.

With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama's opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality.

Speaking before a live mic to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama explained to him that he and the Russians could find common ground, but Vladimir Putin would have to give President Obama "space" until after the election. Medvedev questions what President Obama meant about "space." President Obama responded, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

Just as Romney's words reinforce people's fears that he will say or do anything to get elected, President Obama's words reinforce people's fears that should he win re-election, he will say and do whatever the hell he wants since the voters won't be able to toss him out of office.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Handicapping Health Care

Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act began Monday. We can expect a decision either in June or October. I predict June. What will it be? I'll go out on a limb and predict Unconstitutional by 5-4. My confidence level is under 60%. I would not be surprised at Unconstitutional, 6-3, but the odds are less than 1%. Constitutional at 6-3 has odds, in my opinion, at 30%.

The Court faces five main arguments.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. FROM RICK SANTORUM: RomneyCare Inspires ObamaCare, But Not America

Two years ago, President Obama signed into law ObamaCare, his signature piece of legislation. As a direct result of that law's unpopularity, Congressional Democrats suffered devastating defeats in the midterm election of 2010, losing more than sixty seats in the House. It would be an understatement to say the President's healthcare overhaul law is merely "unpopular." According to several recent polls, Americans still overwhelmingly oppose ObamaCare by a two-to-one margin. Americans understand that not only is this the wrong solution to our healthcare needs and challenges, it is also an affront to freedom that makes our families' health and country's fiscal health more fragile.

The 2012 election should be an opportunity for Americans to elect a President committed to ObamaCare's repeal and replacement with sound free-market competition. But that is where this 2012 election has an unusual aspect. The original architect of the Democrats' unpopular healthcare law is himself also running for president on the GOP ticket. Mitt Romney, one of the candidates in the race for the GOP nomination, authored and championed his own version of ObamaCare less than six years ago.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Evan Feinberg in Pennsylvania

The Republican Primary in Pennsylvania is one month away. I have documented just how terrible Congressman Tim Murphy is.

I'd like to encourage you to support his opponent, Evan Feinberg. Evan is endorsed by Senators Tom Coburn and Rand Paul. He is a solid conservative and a great fit for Tim Murphy's district. Conservatives lost a primary with Don Manzullo's defeat last week. What conservatives are seeing is conservative activists not opening their checkbooks. I realize people don't have a lot of money to give these days, but the cruel reality is that conservatives need money to get elected and our opponents are opening their checkbooks up while we are not.

So do what you can for Evan Feinberg. We need him in Congress.