Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I appreciate his long service. I think the court benefits when there is someone on there with a memory of how things were.And, as you say, let the Games Begin.
Hopefully, the Obamites have a short list of nominees to choose from. Hope this doesn't take 90 days to decide like the Afghan surge.WV: hofect. A perfect ho?
Next stop for Stevens-Dancing with the Stars!
Hopefully, the Obamites have a short list of nominees to choose from.Stupak.
You would think that a permanent short list exists. One that is occasionally reviewed for additions or deletions as gaffes and/or donations are made. Why should it take more than a week, tops, to nominate someone?However, I am routinely disappointed by the actions of those in power. Why should this be different?
John, Dancing with the Stars? LOL!!!Syntax in this New York Times article first sentence on Stevens:Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, he is retiring.I expect grammatical errors from bloggers - no editing.But the New York Times - they do this for a living! C'mon Keller!
We want a Protestant! Better yet, a Protestant that is not part of the Great Apostasy. Knowing Obama, the pick will be from among an immigrant group that naturally respects the King's prerogatives and has no spot or blemish of belief in American Constitutional division of powers mumbo jumbo within their tradition.
No liberal bias in the Main Stream Media?Liberal bias in the article (this is reporting down the middle?):Stevens was able to draw the support of the court's swing votes, now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy, to rein in or block some Bush administration policies, including the detention of suspected terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, its tilt toward protecting businesses from some lawsuits and its refusal to act against global warming.
No change for the court really, except I hear Stevens was good at convincing others to join him. Wonder how that will change with the newbies. Past that this seems like a bad thing for Obama right before the elections. The man is not exactly good at picking people for important positions. They tend to embarrass him before and after they get the job.
Anyone else think that a confirmation battle will be used to try and rally the Democratic base?(It's Stevens' seat, so the President will have to go pretty far to the left for this to have any effect on the balance of the Court.)
"Anyone else think that a confirmation battle will be used to try and rally the Democratic base?"A battle might be too much, but certainly pointing out the flaws of any nominee - i.e. a big liberal who will only back Obamacare and other socialist policies - is something the GOP should do. I don't know if it is possible to hold things up until after the election without looking too bad, but if they could do that without looking too combative that obviously would be the best case scenario.
Yes, let the games begin, or as they say on the ice, around here, "Drop the puck!"
Let the Borking begin.
I'm thinking Bernardine Rae Dohrn.
BTW, I meant that a battle over the nominee could be good for the GOP. Not the Dems. The Dem base is already there, and no battle over a flaming liberal nominee is going to help the Dems win back Independents and moderate Dems in November.It could hurt the GOP if they handle it badly, but frankly, the majority of Americans are so pissed-off at the Dems right now I'm not sure it would hurt much.
the majority of Americans are so pissed-off at the Dems right now I'm not sure it would hurt much.I agree that many Americans are po-ed at Dems. I disagree that they are embracing the Republicans as a result. Plenty of anger to go around.
The coming Supreme Court battle will motivate the base of the losing party. The Republican base will find additional motivation.
Obama will not throw anyone a bone. He will be looking for the most marxist jurist he can find. Leftardism will be at an all time high.
I just wanted to thank Jerry Ford, for making this all possible. First in 1975 he appoints a liberal to the court in direct violation of his campaign promises. Then the 'moderate' aka liberal justice stays on the court for 35 years. Now he will be replaced by someone just as liberal if not more so. No doubt this liberal will hold the seat for another 35 years.Just shows if vote Republican, expecting them to overturn Roe v. Wade, you're wasting your time.
The first question any Republican should ask the eventual nominee is:"What are the constitutional limits on the Commerce Clause?"Then sit back and watch the squirming begin.
The Republicans will attempt to block every nominee even if the nominee is to the right of Stevens. Which would be interesting since Stevens was an old time moderate Republican.
Let's see-to fill all the remaining social/sexual/religious criteria, Obama needs a Protestant/lesbian/Asian/left-leaning individual-Margaret Cho, perhaps?
Obama will nominate himself!
This is how The Zero gets rid of Hillary permanently - she is a lawyer. Sort of.Then, of course, there's Slobbering Barney. The Court needs a token Corruptocrat.Ann Althouse said... Let the games begin.Meade, is she wearing her Messalina outfit again?John Salmon said... Next stop for Stevens-Dancing with the Stars!Hah! Love it!
"I agree that many Americans are po-ed at Dems. I disagree that they are embracing the Republicans as a result. Plenty of anger to go around."Agreed that Americans are pissed at all incumbents, but it's wishful thinking by the Dems if they think the rage will be equally spread in November. Things could change of course, but we're looking more and more like a GOP landslide every day.
Sorry, it told me it was a conflicting edit, gave me 4 different word verifications, and then double-posted. "It's not my fault."
I think its very likely the Dems will drag this out and float a lot of different candidates to entice Repubs/conservatives into saying things that will be used to portray them as anti whatever.As with Sotomayor, its not going to change the court make up so I'm inclined to let em go. They shouldn't take the bait. They want people to focus away from healthcare/spending.
BTW, I meant that a battle over the nominee could be good for the GOP. Not the Dems.I agree - this suits the GOP's desire to discuss the role of government, federalism, separation of powers etc etc with the public
I hope there are no games. I hope the President picks a qualified liberal or progressive and the Republicans acknowledge that he is the president and he gets the pick.But I understand if he picks somebody with poor judicial temprement or a lack of the cognitive power necessary for the job, somebody who is picked because they are gay or Asian or Hispanic or whatever, that the Rs will make it difficult. And I support that as well.So it is up to him, as long as they are qualified in terms of being up to the job and having good experience, he should be able to nominate that person and get the nomination through the Senate. But then he cannot even control his own party in a quiet manner so I expect it will be all fracked up.Trey
Hey is Lynn Stewart off probation yet?She would be a great pick for him.
I mean he wants to please his base.
It just wasn't fair that she lost out on a job at the Justice Department.
The President is all about being fair after all, don't you know?
but it's wishful thinking by the Dems if they think the rage will be equally spread in November. Well, of course it will hit Democrats harder, there are more of them in office.How will the economy be doing then? That's the unanswerable question when it comes to predicting election results 6-7 months out.
knox said... Sorry, it told me it was a conflicting edit, gave me 4 different word verifications, and then double-posted. "It's not my fault."The comments app on Blogger has been doing weird things recently. You're just the latest victim.
Obama will have no problem finding someone far to the left of Stevens to nominate. Obama is knows so many leftist extremists who make Stevens look like a center-right moderate. So don't be at all surprised when Obama moves the court to the left when replacing the liberal Stevens.
Like WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now) America gets to purge another of Gerald Ford's jokes on America, Justice Stevens.
Trooper:"Hey is Lynn Stewart off probation yet?She would be a great pick for him."LOL..you win the thread;-)But seriously folks, Ron Kuby needs a job.
I agree that many Americans are po-ed at Dems. I disagree that they are embracing the Republicans as a result. Plenty of anger to go around.I don't think that they're embracing Republicans, but the collapse in the Democrats' traditional advantage in the generic ballot looks to me like it's about half due to a decrease in the Democrats' favorability, and about half due to an increase in the Republicans' favorability. I'm just eyeballing it, though, because I am too lazy to enter the figures into a spreadsheet. It looks like Republicans are polling in the mid-30s to the very low 40s (41, 42) in the first half of 2009, then as the health care debate drags on, in the second half of 2009, their numbers perk up, with runs of numbers mostly in the 40-45 range, with a 33 or 34 sprinkled in (and outliers like Gallup's 48 in November). I don't think the generic Republican has polled below 40 in 2010, and the average has shifted up considerably too -- there's a wide dispersal, but the average looks like it creeps up from maybe 43 or 44 to 45 today. Looking at it in the broader context, then, it looks like Republicans have probably improved their standing something like 7% or so, from maybe 38% or so shortly after the inauguration (there's that 22% right around there to pull the average down) to 45 today. So actually, when I look at the numbers, the decline in the Democrats' numbers is more modest than I would have thought. They're at low 40s for a while, perk up into mid to high 40s as the health care debate starts up, then in fall of 2009, drop back down into mid to low 40s, where they are now. The shift seems like maybe 3 or 4 points, not total collapse.This is all just eyeballing, though.
When Stevens is gone, will there be any bowties left on the Supreme Court?
Everything passes.I mean after Souter left you didn't have anyone left who was interested in the balloon knot.
Diane Wood: Seventh Circuit (Stevens's old bench), Chicago (Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School!!! swoon), right age, and liberal. Knows how to play with conservatives: an "unflinching and spirited intellectual counterweight" to Posner and Easterbrook. Not Ivy League (trend coming). Clerked for Justice Blackmun. Lives in a relatively modest suburb, Hinsdale.Bad? Three husbands. Dad worked for Exxon.
"Diane Woods.....Bad? Three husbands."Hey is she related to Tiger?I don't think that is going to fly.
This may actually be bad news for Obama and the Dems. The confirmation hearings for an ultra-left nominee will serve to keep conservatives and moderates mindful of the need for change at the polls in November, and energized enough to take action.
Hey is she related to Tiger?I don't think so. I don't thinks she's a Cougar, either.
Let the Games begin!Wait a sec..."The Games?"What games?Oh, you mean the picking of the new justice.That's not a game.OK, maybe it is a game just a little.It is a guessing game!But playing "guess the person" is silly because the person doesn't matter.What matters is the group she belongs to!Will the nominee be black, latino, or asian? That's question #1. That's also the last question.I guess Obama might be able to get away with nominating a woman who is white, but then she would also have to be a lesbo...
@Michael: ONLY if they occur before the elections. That's why I was wondering about the timing. Anyone know the answer?
"How will the economy be doing then? That's the unanswerable question when it comes to predicting election results 6-7 months out."I'm pretty sure that the economy isn't going to be any better and probably worse by then. Hate to be a pessimist, err, realist, but it's not going to recover this year or even next in regards to jobs which is what's important now.
Barry O. should nominate Al Sharpton. He's a Protestant, he's quite popular in certain circles, and in any case, there's no Constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer.He can be the new Conscience of the Supreme Court
"...frankly, the majority of Americans are so pissed-off at the Dems right now...."Cite, please. Don't assume your closed circle of like-minded associates speak for all Americans. Moreover, where is your analysis of why those who are pissed off at the Dems are angry. I'm angry at the Dems myself. Do you assume, therefore, I support the Republicans or their policies? Not at all; I'm disgusted with the Dems' and Obama's tepid progressivism-lite rhetoric which is then manifested in policies that are mere continuations of those of the Bush White House, or that could have been.We need some real Democrats in office who will act as Dennis Kucinich speaks. I like Alan Grayon, but he also is too quick to toe the party line.
"Obama will not throw anyone a bone. He will be looking for the most marxist jurist he can find."Perhaps in your paranoid fever dreams, but in the real world, we'll be lucky if he nominates anyone who is even nominally left-of-center.
It's going to be Harold Koh. God help us.
"Hey is Lynn Stewart off probation yet?"She's not on probation, but in jail...a miscarriage of justice.
@ Irene...Diane Wood looks like a perfect complement to Sonia Sotomayor. She has enough Texas time to keep her sane in the World of Warcraft against Judges that uphold the law. Is divorce now a disqualification? It only means that she is not Catholic. Female Judges that have had a divorce would definitely have some more of that special wisdom that batchelor old men never acquired.
@traditionalguy: I don't think divorce is a disqualification, but three marriages will cause some tongues to wag. Not my tongue, of course.
"@traditionalguy: I don't think divorce is a disqualification, but three marriages will cause some tongues to wag."Well look at it this way, if she gets on the Court they will get rid of that stupid "Three strikes" laws that so many states have put in. I can see the test case now "US et al vs Elizabeth Taylor."
Haha Trooper. Causa tendera.Oh! I did not notice before that Diane Wood was born on the Fourth of July.Shucks, she missed sharing a birthday with George W and Nancy Reagan by just two days.
Hey she shares a birthday with my personal hero, George Steinbrenner.Did I tell you lately that the New York Yankees are going to win the World Series?Again.
rcocean wrote: I just wanted to thank Jerry Ford, for making this all possible. First in 1975 he appoints a liberal to the court in direct violation of his campaign promises. Then the 'moderate' aka liberal justice stays on the court for 35 years. Now he will be replaced by someone just as liberal if not more so. No doubt this liberal will hold the seat for another 35 years.Just shows if vote Republican, expecting them to overturn Roe v. Wade, you're wasting your time.What campaign promises were these that Jerry Ford somehow violated in 1975?
Three marriages? Who does she think she is, Rudy Giuliani?
Dershbowitz.Won't happen.At the announcement of the nomination, Obama wants to be the smartest guy in the room.
"Three marriages? Who does she think she is, Rudy Giuliani?"Only if one of them was her cousin.
Perhaps in your paranoid fever dreams, but in the real world, we'll be lucky if he nominates anyone who is even nominally left-of-center.I know, right? That Sotomayor was such a wingnut!
No doubt we'll have to listen to Newt Gingrich explain how three marriages raises questions about Diane Wood's character. I bet he can do it with a straight face.
If a spirited nominee debate can generate enough distraction to push off consideration of Cap and Trade and Card Check, where actual damage could be done, I'm all for it. Bring on the filibuster!
"I know, right? That Sotomayor was such a wingnut!"Do you suggest she's a Marxist, or even a particulary left-leaning idealogue of any kind? If so, what basis do you have for this assessment?
"Gingrich sounds like Kermit the Frog."That's just because his tongue smells like pork. Just sayn.
There are several sharp legal minds that come to me immediately:Maxine Waters D-GeniusAndy Stern D-HackHank Johnson D-GuamRoland Burris D- Beats MeBarbara Boxer D-Box of RocksBart Stupak D-SelloutElliott Spitzer D-Client#9Ray LaHood D-Menses
Related parody: One-Fifth of Living Constitution to Retire at End of Supreme Court Term http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-fifth-of-living-constitution-to.html
I was thinking attorney Caroline Kennedy. A Columbia Law School grad in the top 10% - before deciding on a career to attend Manhattan socialite luncheons & Parties, go to Kennedy tributes, and uplift the lower masses.Wouldn't a Supreme Court seat be an even better pony than a Senate seat? It's what Ted Kennedy would have wanted, too...And the Senate hearings where Princess Caroline attempts to articulate her judicial philosophy are guaranteed to be memorable!Caroline! Almost as "young" as Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor were - if slightly wrinkled. Married to a liberal Jew. Screwing the Jewish owner of the NYTs on the side. Her mom shacked up with Morrie Templemann, a Jewish Diamond merchant, for 20 years. ...About the best deal progressive Jews can get. Nominally catholic, but of such religious feelings buried so deep, she can no more find them than Uncle Teddy could.
Cedarford, you're an embarassment.
Filibuster anyone who won't, in hearings, declare that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Let the Democrats scream "obstructionism" all they like over that issue; every second the mandate is in the news, the Republicans gain.
what a convenient was for obama to get rid of Hillary ! wow.
@Steven, I don't think you could get 40 votes for that sort of filibuster.I wonder if we'll ever get a non-judge again? Obama is going to want to appeal to the center without alienating his base so i suspect he splits the difference. His choice will be boring to both the left and the right although like the boring Sotomayor people on both sides will try to make lemons from lemonade for their particular sacred cow.
If Obama doesn't make a nomination before the elections, he has little chance of getting anything other than a moderate who occasionally reads the New Republic. The Dems will be hammered this year, and though they should retain a narrow control of the Senate (51-53 seats), they won't have any chance to stop even a limited filibuster.
"Scott said... Cedarford, you're an embarassment"Just making my case for Caroline. Allow me to add that besides her empathetic nature from living with wealthy Irish Catholics and Jews, and taking trips to visit with unfortunate Negroes (all Obama checkmarks) and being a woman (another checkmark), Caroline has unusual empathy for all things Greek.She was immersed in Greek attitudes and ways from the typical Greeks she met on Onassis's yacht and private island, growing up as a child. She learned Greeks liked to wear white vests and were incredibly solicitous of her every want and need.As a museum doyenne, Caroline broadened her empathy by looking at ancient Greek statues.And learned more Greek things from Pinch Sulzberger at his midtown "afternoon getaway" apartment.
The Senate isn't going to self destruct over a moderate left candidate like Sotomayor. Plus one excepts a modicum of professional courtesy.
Excepts. Haha. Freudian slip.
Filibuster anyone who won't, in hearings, declare that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Let the Democrats scream "obstructionism" all they like over that issue; every second the mandate is in the news, the Republicans gain.Excellent. I love it.
Three names are getting the most play in the early speculation:Elena KaganDiane WoodMerrick GarlandKagan seems to have the most early "buzz".From what I gather from a few articles, if you were to place these three on an ideological scale, it would go (left-to-center, as it were):WoodKaganGarlandFor those who think Obama is stridently liberal, someone in the mold of Wood would be the likely choice. For liberals who think he's a centrist sellout (and there are more than a few of these), Garland would be the choice.And for me, I'd be very surprised by Wood and not at all by Kagan.
FYI, Glenn Greenwald, a leading blogger on the left, doesn't like the supposed early leader Kagan at all.
Wood is the natural choice.
@themightypuckProbably there are no grounds on which a filibuster could be sustained, minus massive and obvious unsuitability of the candidate that would probably ensure a withdrawal in any case.However, if there are any grounds on which a filibuster could be managed, it would be by making the hearings a pure extension of the health care debate. HCR is, I believe, the only issue on which there is aligned 1) a demonstrated accord among the 41 Republican Senators, 2) a matter of interpretation of the Constitution, and 3) public opinion favorable to the Republicans.It is, in short, the only plausible (if, admittedly, not actually probable) grounds on which a fillibuster could be sustained to keep the seat open until the new Congress arrives in January. It is also the only filibuster grounds that could plausibly help the Republicans in pulling off a "miracle" victory and gain actual control of the Senate.
Pope's goin' down, bytchez. So says yahoo newz.wv: "ovele" -- that's what Moishe said upon hearing the news about the Pope.
Maybe instead of a wise Latina he will appoint a temperate Octoroon.
This should be very interesting. Lets see who the next "qualified" judge will the Obama Administration nominate for the job. My guess its going to be someone totally undeserving for the job.
Probably there are no grounds on which a filibuster could be sustainedThe Republicans will fold in the name of bi-partisanship and compromise. You know the drill, some McCain will create a Gang of Six and allow the most liberal and unqualified nom. They're already caving on the repeal of Obamacare. Compromising their compromises.
Do you suggest she's a Marxist, or even a particulary left-leaning idealogue of any kind? If so, what basis do you have for this assessment?She's a blatant leftist. However, given that you persist in calling Obama himself a centrist despite his every action proving otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time marshaling evidence of Sotomayor's liberalism. It would end up being like the Monty Python "Argument" sketch; I'd provide links proving she's a leftist, and your replies would just be contradiction. "No she's not. No she's not." Thanks anyway.
Haha! Two threads in one day refer to brilliant Monty Python sketches. "You came here for an argument."
Maybe we'll get an entertainment bonanza - Skippy can nominate. . . Rosemary Barkette?That's be a laugh riot.
"[Lynn Stewart is] in jail...a miscarriage of justice."Oh, Cookie, I just looooove it when we agree with each other.Yes indeed, a miscarriage of justice--she should have gotten the death penalty. I'm actually kind of surprised you feel this way, too.
John Cleese would brighten up the hearings a bit.
And learned more Greek things from Pinch Sulzberger at his midtown "afternoon getaway" apartment.I believe it's called "pegging" now. And who doesn't like a prostate massage?
Michael Hasenstab said... John Cleese would brighten up the hearings a bit.Argument clinic comes instantly to mind. :D
Robert Cook said: "I like Alan Grayon, but he also is too quick to toe the party line.You mean Alan Grayson? He's a real class act. He's one of those Democrats longing for the days of civil discourse.I'm sure he'd make an excellent Supreme Court Justice.
How come no one's mentioned Jamie Gorelick yet?
"The Republicans will fold in the name of bi-partisanship and compromise."Since when in the last two decades have the Republicans been interested in bipartisanship? Their sole operating philosophy is obstructionism when they're out of power and bullying assertion of their platform when in power, (the latter practice abetted by the Dems' too-ready willingness to cave in, in the alleged interests of "bipartisanship," a nice cover for their abject cowardice and/or alignment with Republican goals).
"Robert Cook said: "I like Alan Grayon, but he also is too quick to toe the party line.""You mean Alan Grayson? He's a real class act. He's one of those Democrats longing for the days of civil discourse.I'm sure he'd make an excellent Supreme Court Justice."My apologies for being unclear. I wasn't referring to a desire that Grayson be selected for the Supreme Court. I meant that we need more Graysons in Congress, those who are willing to challenge the Republicans and the Washington power structure and who will speak bluntly to the those who lie and are corruptors of our government. The Dems, by and large, are too invested in things as they are, are too much leeches on the corporate money tit--just as are their colleagues the Republicans--to really act in contravention of the overriding party agenda, which is essentially the same as the Repubs: to obtain and hold on to power and the money that both fuels it and derives from it.But even Grayon, as with Kucinich, isn't as much the maverick in action as is rhetoric would suggest. We need some real fire-breathing leftists in Congress who will walk the talk.
Robert Cook said: "Since when in the last two decades have the Republicans been interested in bipartisanship?"About as often as the Democrats have been.
"(Sotomayor's) a blatant leftist. However, given that you persist in calling Obama himself a centrist despite his every action proving otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time marshaling evidence of Sotomayor's liberalism. It would end up being like the Monty Python "Argument" sketch; I'd provide links proving she's a leftist, and your replies would just be contradiction. "No she's not. No she's not." Thanks anyway.First, "leftism" is not synonymous with "liberalism." "Liberals" fundamentally agree that existing society is good and fair and must be maintained, but merely needs to be refined so that it is "more fair." "Leftists" have a much more severe critique of existing society and prescribe much more dramatic systemic remedies to the ills they perceive. Second, you fail to support your assertion that Sotomayor is a "blatant leftist," and thus your claim is hollow. Third, you fail also to support the much-loved paranoid rightist fantasy that Obama is some sort of "leftist" himself, or even a "Socialist" or "Communist." Your comment to the contrary, Obama's actions would lead one to believe he is consulting with Dick Cheney behind the scenes for advice on how best to continue the failed policies of the previous administration, albeit with "nicer" rhetoric, making those policies more acceptable to polite society. It is clear you are merely repeating what you have heard, the undigested received wisdom of the lunatic fringe who bray more loudly in inverse proportion to the substance of their phantom imaginings.
"But even Grayon, as with Kucinich, isn't as much the maverick in action as is rhetoric would suggest. We need some real fire-breathing leftists in Congress who will walk the talk."I'll agree with you there. But I'll disagree with your take on Grayson and that our government needs more of him. Grayson is a self-interested blowhard (like most other pols) who possesses maybe half the intelligence he thinks he does.You really don't even have to get into his politics.
"Third, you fail also to support the much-loved paranoid rightist fantasy that Obama is some sort of "leftist" himself, or even a "Socialist" or "Communist." Your comment to the contrary, Obama's actions would lead one to believe he is consulting with Dick Cheney behind the scenes for advice on how best to continue the failed policies of the previous administration, albeit with "nicer" rhetoric, making those policies more acceptable to polite society."I'll skip your...interesting...take on liberalism/leftism and instead focus on this quote. You seem to clearly occupy a spot on the left right around say....Noam Chomsky, so of course you're going to reach these conclusions. Everyone knows socialists don't like to be called socialists, but that doesn't change reality. You can toss out absurd labels like "paranoid" and "fantasy", but that still doesn't change reality.Obama has taken the leftward shift of his predecessor and given it a violent shove in that direction. Shall we take a look at it? Government ownership/control of the means of production: GM (ownership), Chrysler (giving workers control of the means). This is the lion's share of the U.S. auto manufacturing industry.Shall we examine what Obama has done with the financial industry? Awful lot of government control (not regulation) there too. Surely you're aware of it, yes?Shall we examine monetary policy and just how incestuous it has become?What about bailouts?How about Max Baucus coming right out and calling the new healthcare bill a straight up wealth redistribution (his words)? Shall we examine his appointments?You see, you make the false assumption that Bush was right wing or conservative when it came to fiscal policy. He clearly was not. Obama has taken his more statist intervention policies and expanded them. Big business is interested in both Dems and Pubs because of the public treasure they know they can raid with their help. There is nothing conservative or right wing about turning to the government for handouts and corporate subsidies. That's left wing. You also seem to be referring to Dick Cheney (dear God cue the scary music it's DICK CHENEY!) as if he was the architecht of Bush's fiscal policy. This of course is ludicrous, but at least you got the obligatory Darth Cheney reference in, so good on ya there.But getting back to the point, there's plenty of evidence to suggest Obama and his policies are socialist, so why not just own up to it, or prove the well-founded observation wrong?Do you really think a socialist can just flip a switch in America and get socialism? You really don't seem well-informed enough on the subject to call anyone "paranoid". When did it become unacceptable to call a duck a duck if it walks like one, quacks like one, and hangs around with other ducks?
Post a Comment