Professor Tribe, you explain your use of violent rhetoric on TV today -- referring to impeachment as a "bullet" which requires that one "shoot to kill" -- as a momentary lapse: "a terrible word choice."
— BP (@BadgerPundit) May 22, 2018
You say it's "inexcusable." Why, then, is this also on p. 94 of your book? pic.twitter.com/wpihjAUIf9
May 23, 2018
Tribe's "momentary lapse" not so momentary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
202 comments:
1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor.
Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor.
Yes indeed.
Did Sarah Palin's Target Map Play Role in Giffords Shooting? Was it yelling fire in a crowded theater?
"Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor."
But a metaphor used twice is not a metaphor used once.
Data point #2999 to show that progs don't believe their own BS.
If a tool is handy, they'll use it; otherwise, not.
Anyway, what "tyrannical impulses" is he talking about in his book?
ARM: "Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor."
This is not what the left/libs have been saying for the last 10 years.
I'm sorry that you are having difficulty living up to the rules your side established.
It's almost as if your team determined the rules you established would never be applied to you. Why did you think that?
I mean, its not like anyone in the Democrat Party would take such words literally and shoot an elected official. Tribe knows exactly what he's doing here. "By any means necessary."
You know, it's not like democrats have been shooting up republican baseball practices and attacking republican senators or anything.
robother beat me to it.
Obama chuckled his way through Harvard Law School. So many douchebags like Tribe there. It was like shooting fish in a barrel for Obama.
I agree with robother. Tribe knows EXACTLY what he is doing and with the left/lib/LLR fever dreams of impeachment fading Tribe and the left are sending the message that any lefty lunatic (of which there are millions) who actually goes full Hinckley will be warmly welcomed as a hero.
Perhaps he hadn't planned on someone reading his book.
The left have a collective Hillary-lost butt-hurt hard-on, loaded with bullets, and it just won't quit.
Clinton corruption denialists, as far as the eye can see.
Did Jared Loughner ever visit Sarah Palin's web-site? No. but that won't keep the left from lying about it. The narrative.
@Althouse, IMHO needs your "civility bullshit" tag, as in civility for Republicans but not for lefties in good standing.
Et tu Larry?
Tribe's a Big Fat Fibber!
This whole thing is stupid.
It's another version of "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." The people freaking out over it are idiots.
Academia is a useful mental institution. Cheaper to let Harvard house nuts like Tribe than have the government pay for it. How sad was it for Tribe when Obama appointed Sotomayor. Assuming of course that Tribe finally realized that Obama thought Tribe was a dweeb all along and just used Tribe for whatever Obama wanted.
Curse you interwebs!
mccullough: "Obama chuckled his way through Harvard Law School."
Harvard Law changed the rules for academic achievement and writings to allow obama to slide into Harvard Law Review.
Essentially, just another in a long line of "nobel"-type "achievements" given to obama for being able to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide via respiration.
Tribe should look into recharging Bird scooters.
Real money there.
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Just another violent lefty twit with tenure. Nothing to see here.
Just another violent lefty twit with tenure
Sometimes it feels constructive we've gathered them all in the same place.
..with Harvard branding.
"Stoop, Romans, stoop,
And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood
Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords.
Then walk we forth, even to the marketplace,
And waving our red weapons o'er our heads
Let’s all cry, “Peace, freedom, and liberty!"
Brutus makes an apology:
In an otherwise good speech I made a terrible word choice, saying an "let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood" before going out to the marketplace. I was kind of speaking literally, given all the blood, but as one who always washes his hands after fighting this was just inexcusable. I’m very sorry.
Drago,
Obama is by far the smartest person to ever go through Harvard Law, student or faculty. He saw the place for what it was and breezed through there. He played them all for the marks they are — vain, privileged fools
Obama owned John Roberts, who was supposed to be some Harvard Law Superstar. Roberts, like Tribe, is toilet paper for Obama. Big Law Firm Hot Shots. Super Star Professors. Toilet paper for Obama.
The only one who has played these guys as well is Trump. Totally different tactics, but Toilet Paper.
Mr Wibble said...
This whole thing is stupid.
It's another version of "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." The people freaking out over it are idiots.
Yeah. It isn't as if somebody was really shooting at Republicans.
Or the son of a Democrat politician attacks Trump with a knife.
That would-be assassin was later interviewed by CNN.
This should be ridiculous. A metaphor is just a metaphor.
However, given the actions of the Left, it is important that we hold them to the same standards they impose on the rest of us.
Obama is by far the smartest person to ever go through Harvard Law, student or faculty.
No, I would say that the person who arranged for Obama to be there, is smarter.
They even made him "President" of the Law Review. Not editor, and he never wrote an article for it, but "President."
We may never know but it might come out someday.
One great thing about Laurence Tribe is that he is total product of Harvard culture: from is earliest coddled dorm room days, to his BS in mathematics, to his JD degree (magna cum Laude), to his faculty career. He never left the place. When he speaks, he pretty much speaks for a significant fraction of Harvard, the institution.
Chickelit, thats true. He is deep, deep in that culture.
Tribe speaks not only for himself, but indeed for his "tribe".
It is revealing on many levels.
"You say it's "inexcusable." Why, then, is this also on p. 94 of your book?"
As Tribe would put it "BOOM - HEADSHOT!"
Violent metaphors are OK for us to use, because we are the sane and reasonable ones.
You loonies, however, need to watch what you say - no telling which of your number you'll send off the deep end.
As Mr Wibble noted, Tribe is right. Tribe is warning the Left they only have once chance (if it even remotely exists) to impeach and remove Trump. If they fail, then Trump will be completely free to go after Obama and all of his people and Trump is the kind of guy that likes to get even. The RINO's will be suitably chastened to not interfere with Trump at that point.
It’s sad to see what TDS has done to Tribe. He’s a ludicrous person now. Totally unhinged.
A metaphor is just a metaphor when used once. Used more than once, it becomes a pattern.
Simile and the world similes with out. Metaphor and you metaphor alone.
Drago said...
I agree with robother. Tribe knows EXACTLY what he is doing and with the left/lib/LLR fever dreams of impeachment fading Tribe and the left are sending the message that any lefty lunatic (of which there are millions) who actually goes full Hinckley will be warmly welcomed as a hero.
Oh, no. Should that happen, they will be shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you! Then they'll go and blame Trump for being so divisive and hateful to incite such a thing. They will never admit that something they said would inspire someone to do such a terrible thing, all the while being giddy inside that it actually happened.
Obama knew he didn’t need to write anything for Harvard. That’s what Toilet Paper like Ted Cruz does. He Writes.
And I have no doubt he talked his way in there himself. No don’t he used a few connections to speak up for him but that was part of The Game.
Obama used Their Vanity against them. Trump just flat out shatters their Vanity. Guys like Cruz and Roberts are Vain. They emulated what they saw. They coveted Prestige. Obama used Roberts vain desire for Prestige against him. Trump shattered Cruz. Broke him. Made him cry. It’s no fun to realize you are Toilet Paper.
Synecdoche is more promising for clear speaking. It lets you call women cunts.
"As Tribe would put it "BOOM - HEADSHOT!"
Please come by the production office after the show to claim your prize.
The moment was gone, but repeated, semi-automatically.
Tribe and the left are sending the message that any lefty lunatic (of which there are millions) who actually goes full Hinckley will be warmly welcomed as a hero.
But in reality Trump being assassinated would be the absolute worst possible outcome for the left.
1) They would end up with a martyr who stood up to the Deep State.
2) Even if it was clearly just a lone loon many people would never believe their wasn't a conspiracey (see JKF, Lee Harvey Oswald).
3) Pence would be president. Yeah.
4) There would be no small amount of anger toward the entire Left. The Democrat party may even become a toxic brand for a time.
Drago: It's almost as if your team determined the rules you established would never be applied to you. Why did you think that?
Well, cucks let 'em get away with it for decades, and those cucks are still out there, shrilly demanding that the right continue to allow the left to keep curb-stomping them because donors, er, muh principles.
So in a way it's understandable that your slower sort of lefty is perplexed and angry that it's not working anymore. Kinda like rats feel when they press a lever a thousand times and reliably get a nice rat chow pellet, and then all of a sudden nothing happens, no matter how often and frantically they stomp on the lever.
It's not true that an impeachment can be done only once.
Tribe is sorry that his dog-whistle was heard by the wrong people.
If they could get away with shooting Trump they would have by now.
They will not be able to pull off the crazy person lone attacker schtick again like they did with Reagan.
And at this point you would have to wonder if some higher power would protect Trump from their assasination attempt. Reagan should not have survived and Trump should not have beat Hillary.
Everything they have done to take out Trump has only made him stronger.
The worst thing for the swamp would be if someone actually succeeded in killing Trump. I think they know that.
Stalin thought the same thing about his Trotsky problem. Comrade Tribe's spirit of Marxist Murder is very strong . But it only shows us his group's truly Treasonous intent.
Ann Althouse said...
"But a metaphor used twice is not a metaphor used once."
Actually, I think this is evidence that Tribe may have read his own book. A lot of academic "authors" don't have time to read their own books. Tribe is a true craftsman.
One should compare the twitter accounts of Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe. Both are tenured left of center, Law Professors at Harvard. But one is an honorable man, making logical, legal arguments (Dersh), while the other is an unhinged, lefty political hack, using his prestigious platform to "resist" the President.
Yes, it's only a metaphor. But it's also a signifies what a Leftwing political hack Tribe has become.
Really, in a book, it's a perfectly reasonable use of a dramatic metaphor. I suppose it becomes somewhat more problematic in a hotter medium like television, but even so, his real mistake was the apology. Never apologize, never explain.
Women feel threatened rightfully when Jordan Peterson talks about makeup.
Nobody should feel threatened by Tribe's bullet metaphors.
I'm simultaneously opposed to anyone policing metaphors and tickled when the smug trip over a curb.
Interesting question; is a statement made on television more likely to incite an assassination, than one made in a book?
One reason I don't watch television is that I don't like the way it keeps coming at you. With a book, you can stop reading and think, or reread a passage 'til the logic or the lack of it is evident. Television just moves on, to the next inane provocation. I guess that's not so true nowadays, most TV is recorded. But it was true when I stopped watching television.
Translation, "It's okay when we do something about which we'd go bonkers (or put on a really good acting show of going bonkers) when conservatives do it."
"Really, in a book, it's a perfectly reasonable use of a dramatic metaphor."
-- If the right got the same level of leniency, I'd agree. But the right has been chastised about "eliminationist rhetoric" for over a decade, so. Goose, Gander.
Can you imagine this vicious loon Laurence Tribe being a Supreme Court justice?
He would be sending out his dog-whistles to shoot his fellow justices who disagree with him.
We all are lucky that Tribe was not born a Hispanic female.
Who is BadgerPundit and really why do they care?
"Who is BadgerPundit and really why do they care?"
-- We care because Tribe is lying; this wasn't a momentary lapse. This is his carefully considered point he wanted to make.
Who is BadgerPundit?
Doesn't matter. Attack the argument, not the person. I don't care if BadgerPundit turns out to be Arnold Schwarzenegger or Putin in the flesh. The argument matters.
An impeachment process that leave the same party in power is a circle jerk™.
I'm opposed to using the penis in violent rhetoric.
A violent penis, is a bad penis.
Jupiter said:
"One reason I don't watch television is that I don't like the way it keeps coming at you. With a book, you can stop reading and think, or reread a passage 'til the logic or the lack of it is evident. Television just moves on, to the next inane provocation."
I watched a few Dick Cavett reruns recently. His interviews often included backtracking to prior statements and rhetorical pauses for reflection. It sure was superior to today's shouting matches.
Drago -- what is the source for your claim that Harward changed its rules so Obama could get on law review?
Known Unknown said...
Who is BadgerPundit and really why do they care?
Those uppity proles!
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor."
But a metaphor used twice is not a metaphor used once.
5/23/18, 9:18 AM
You are correct in your statement AA. But Tribe is also infected with the "TDS disease" and anything he says about President Trump is questionable since the propoganda drive is his only purpose.
Just read this Glenn Greenwald article:
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/harvards-laurence-tribe-has-become-a-deranged-russia-conspiracist-today-was-his-most-humiliating-debacle/
Make them play by their own rules.
steve uhr said...
Drago -- what is the source for your claim that Harward changed its rules so Obama could get on law review?
What is your source for the claim Obama deserved that post?
All evidence points to Obama being a mediocre mind who got gentleman's C's at best.
Tribe says right on that same page: "History teaches that abuse of power rarely ceases of its own accord."
See, he supports the scrutiny of Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, Yates, and the Obama cabal's abuse of power.
One of my problems with trump derangement syndrome is this isn't about policy anymore. The craziness towards Trump is mainstream and is about framing him and his administration as evil dictators equivalent to the absolute worst in modern human history. And the purpose of doing that is to set the stage for being part of the team who thinks of themselves as stopping Hitler.
And part of that thought process is the complete rejection of a democratically elected President as in any way valid.
That's a huge freaking problem to promote within a mainstream party that putatively represents 50% of our populace including most major urban areas.
Give Tribe and his whole tribe a break. They can't help it. When you actually function on emotion under the veneer, you are gonna let it slip. And then when everyone starts doing it, it gets more and more comfortable.
I was reading about someone's theory on the recent rash of school shootings as similar to their theory on riots. The first person who throws a rock through a window has a low threshold for rioting that most people do not share, but there is a second rock thrower with a higher threshold who only felt comfortable doing it after seeing the first, and so it goes drawing in people with successively higher thresholds to violence and rioting until there is a whole crowd of rioters with varying thresholds for the behavior, most of whom would never throw the first rock. He suggested that was what was happening with the school shootings.
I think it's been happening with TDS. People who have not felt comfortable openly attacking a sitting president with such vitriol have reached their threshold after all their friends did it. This is also how the lying and corruption has gotten so widespread. This is a disease rampant in government now. There are fewer and fewer people in government who function on a sense of nonpartisan honor and duty, as I think most once did.
They now are driven primarily by partisanship and of course the oversized benefits of working for Big Brother.
I was watching a show on the Jonestown massacre and the church started out in the midwest with noble and modest goals of helping people in their immediate community, which they did. Then they moved to California where they added many new members. Then the church started seeing itself as on a mission to "change the world". Anytime someone tries to change the world and imagines themselves capable of it, it goes very badly, becuase that grand of an goal justifies virtually anything.
Also....
I didn't pay as much attention Pre-Clinton but why has it become common to CONSTANTLY talk about articles of impeachment with each President. I saw it with Bush II, Obama, and now Trump .
Is this just a ~20 year old red meat rallying cry ?
He originally said ""History teaches that abuse of power rarely ceases of its own Camry," but then apologized saying it was "a terrible word choice."
Jupiter said... Really, in a book, it's a perfectly reasonable use of a dramatic metaphor. I suppose it becomes somewhat more problematic in a hotter medium like television, but even so, his real mistake was the apology. Never apologize, never explain.
Excellent point and summation.
There is a reason why we never saw Obama's college transcripts, and it's not becuase he didn't want to brag.
There is surely also a reason why we have not seen Trump's tax returns, which I assume would be that his opponents would find ammunition there, but Trump and all the rest of us know that would happen regardless of how legal his returns may be.
It's not like Dems didn't go absolutely bananas about Sarah Palin and a gunsight; it was her fault that a mentally ill kid shot up Gabrielle Giffords.
But these silly twits in academia (Harvard, I'm looking at you) like to talk butch. Makes them feel good.
Tribe may be the next leftist to play baseball in the right field. For that reason, his metaphor must be interpreted in the twilight haze of his Pro-Choice religion. I'm surprised that he doesn't favor the assault scalpel, vacuum, etc. tool, weapon, and metaphor preferred by his tribe.
Achilles. - Drago made the claim, not me. I did not say he is wrong. I just want to know his source. A reasonable request.
TreeJoe said...
"And part of that thought process is the complete rejection of a democratically elected President as in any way valid."
Yeah, that's the part I find deeply worrisome. We put up with their Affirmative Action President for eight sickening years, because this is America, and we elect our Presidents. I was preparing myself to put up with four years of Hillary Clinton, though the idea stuck in my craw like a broken bone. But somehow we dodged that bullet (ahem). We elected a President they find distasteful, and the Democrats want out of the contract. The difference between a reasonable human you can negotiate with and an animal you must deal with by force is that humans stick by their agreements and refrain from coercion. The Left is making it plain that they are not reasonable humans.
Requires you "CIVILITY BULLSHIT" tag.
steve uhr said...
"Achilles. - Drago made the claim, not me. I did not say he is wrong. I just want to know his source. A reasonable request."
Agreed. I had heard that becoming President of the Review without ever writing anything substantive about law was unprecedented. I had not heard that there was a rule and it was changed.
I see some are using the Palin reference.
I've never been a fan of 'whataboutism' and I see nothing wrong with Tribe's choice of metaphorical language.
"I've never been a fan of 'whataboutism' and I see nothing wrong with Tribe's choice of metaphorical language."
-- Calling for consistency in standards is not "whataboutism."
-- Calling for consistency in standards is not "whataboutism."
What standards? TV Talking head standards? Book writing standards?
Oddly enough, the NYT article describing Obama’s election was written by Fox Butterfield.
Also, asking for standards in modern media journalism is hilarious. They have no clue what standards are.
It seems the left, as a group, doesn't know what whataboutism is. Here's a quick Google: "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
So, if bringing up Tribe, the right, say, brought up whether or not Tribe supported higher taxes--that's whataboutism. It is a different issue or counter accusation. Using an example of a similar issue to expand on the current one is not--for example, if we were talking about investigating a murder, and someone brought up how the police investigated a similar case, that's NOT whataboutism, but if they brought up "police are racist/morally unquestionable/whatever," that IS.
Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor.
Yes. When used by liberals. When used by conservatives, t is hate speech.
Blogger Known Unknown said...
Who is BadgerPundit and really why do they care?
Have you considered that it might be Ann ?
"What standards? TV Talking head standards? Book writing standards?"
-- Whether or not eliminationist rhetoric is allowable (or if these perfectly tame comments are actually "eliminationist rhetoric.")
Give Tribe and his whole tribe a break.
Nope.
They can't help it.
So what?
Look, if Tribe and every other left-wing talking head personally apologizes to Palin for the calumny heaped on her after the Giffords shooting — whether they were personally one of the calumny helpers or not!!! — then, yeah, I will cut Tribe snd his tribe some slack. Maybe.
If boiling in oil is the prescribed punishment for a crime, then it makes sense to require that all classes of persons be fairly subject to the same penalty, it should not be selectively applied to people one side especially dislikes. That boiling in oil may be an absurd punishment for trivial crimes is beside the point.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor."
So, why didn't Tribe defend its use as such?
Some of us might wish for Hillary Clinton to be drowned in a vat of her own excrement. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Have you considered that it might be Ann ?
I think it's the gardener.
Drago -- what is the source for your claim that Harward changed its rules so Obama could get on law review?
After a quick Google search:
"Change in Selection System
Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.
Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.
Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters."
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
While it might be inaccurate to say that Harvard changed the rules for Obama, it is pretty clear he would have never been on the law review without the changes to the rules.
Jupiter said...
steve uhr said...
"Achilles. - Drago made the claim, not me. I did not say he is wrong. I just want to know his source. A reasonable request."
Agreed. I had heard that becoming President of the Review without ever writing anything substantive about law was unprecedented. I had not heard that there was a rule and it was changed.
I don't care if there is a written rule. There are unwritten rules everywhere.
One of these unwritten rules was that in order to become President of Harvard Law Review was the entirely reasonable expectation that you actually reviewed some law.
Crazy I know.
I would guess that there were written criteria somewhere and they were flushed down the toilet when a less than mediocre student who later demonstrated he could barely read words on a teleprompter was put in a position he was not even close to qualified for.
Rules, official or unofficial, were obviously changed.
Harvard doesn't need to publicly admit that for it to be an obvious truth.
The rules at the Harvard law Review were changed as a form of Affirmative Action.
Which is pretty insulting to minorities when you think about it.
A few observations:
1. Some saner members of the Dem party are downplaying impeachment talk during the campaign season (because it helps motivate folks on the right).
2. However, if the Dems win back the House, Yes, they will impeach Trump, regardless of any evidence, regardless of whether Mueller produces a timely report. They've been talking about impeachment since the inauguration!
3. And, despite the obvious success of the Trump administration (high GDP, high Dow Jones, low unemployment), and the absolute worthlessness of the Dem Party, the Dems still have a good shot at re-taking the House. It's part of the structural ebb and flow of mid-term elections, particularly when the President is not on the ballot (see 1966, see 1986, see 1994, see 2006, see 2010).
4. So, if the Dems re-take the House, they will undo all the good work done by Devin Nunes. And they will feel vindicated for all the bullshit they've been peddling for 2 years now.
5. The saving grace is that hopefully the Senate will quickly vote to not remove Trump (need 67 votes), but this depends on how many GOPe are burrowed within the Senate. And, then, hopefully, Trump can bounce back to win in 2020 (as Clinton did).
6. It would be better to avoid this, and dig deep to keep the House in GOP hands.
My 2 cents. I could be wrong about it all.
Steve Uhr: "Drago -- what is the source for your claim that Harward changed its rules so Obama could get on law review?"
Barack Obama was the beneficiary of an Affirmative Action program initiated to increase representation of minorities at Harvard Law Review.
Traditionally (pre-1980), the students with the best grads and/or exemplary body of work in published articles and analysis were the criteria for selection to Harvard Law Review editor roles.
To increase minority representation a "Special Writing competition" was initiated (exclusive of grades) for half the editor slots to help increase minority participation.
That's how obama snuck in. One problem: the only thing obama ever wrote, which had to be dug up and leaked out years later, was a short "analysis" of an illinois abortion related decision.
During his entire time as President of the Harvard Law Review, Editor obama published......nothing.
But only nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Because "sort of gods" have better things to do with their time.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/6/5/law-review-debates-affirmative-action-policy/
bagoh20 said...
Give Tribe and his whole tribe a break. They can't help it. When you actually function on emotion under the veneer, you are gonna let it slip. And then when everyone starts doing it, it gets more and more comfortable.
These people want to burn the Bill of Rights. The reticence you describe later in your post is cowardice, not influence or the result of critical thought.
Dozens of times they have murdered significant percentages of people in societies after violently seizing power.
They have used up all of their benefit of the doubt calling us racist nazi homophobe bigot misogynists over hte last several decades.
We know what they will do when they get power.
Some of us might wish for Hillary Clinton to be drowned in a vat of her own excrement.
Given her insistence on remaining "relevant", it seems reasonable to surmise that she already is drowning in her own shit.
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Some of us might wish for Hillary Clinton to be drowned in a vat of her own excrement.
Yeah, but if we were a bit more Machiavellian, we'd shut up, say nice things about her, and encourage her to run again in 2020 -- only to lose for the 3rd time.
Agree with Mr Wibble
Tribe looks bad (to me) not because of what he said but because of his trembling retreat. Isn't there anyone left on the left with any guts (other than Dershowitz)?
OTOH if Tribe previously attacked Sarah Palin for use of similar imagery then he kind of deserves it.
Bay Area Guy in re point 5:
Clinton didn't bounce back and win reelection after impeachment and acquittal- the next presidential election was lost by his successor.
I had and have no problem with the use of that particular metaphor, and if Tribe gets drowned in his own excrement for using it, I have no problem with that either.
During his entire time as President of the Harvard Law Review, Editor obama published......nothing.
Yes, but that is why they made him "President" not Editor. I just wonder if the position of "President" was invented form him.
Does anyone know if there was previously a "President" of the Law Review ?
Gahrie said...
"The rules at the Harvard law Review were changed as a form of Affirmative Action.
Which is pretty insulting to minorities when you think about it."
Oh, I don't know about that. If someone were to say to me, "Here's a couple million dollars, it's pretty God-damned obvious by now that you're never going to earn that kind of money", I'd have to say he had the evidence on his side. And thanks for the gift, BTW. Or I mean, the reparations.
"the Dems still have a good shot at re-taking the House. "
Not so much anymore.
This could be a huge swing, especially if the Dims let Al Green and Maxine be their spokescritters.
Now we have five straight data points of the GOP in the lead or a virtual tie, and 48 hours-plus of this data being available to all media covering the 2018 midterms.
If Tribe were a host on CNN or part of the 'unbiased' media, this would have more of a point.
tcrosse said...
Some of us might wish for Hillary Clinton to be drowned in a vat of her own excrement. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Or just being sent to jail with service members who violated clearances and mishandled classified material.
Michael: "Does anyone know if there was previously a "President" of the Law Review ?"
Yes, but previously it was reserved for the most accomplished selectee.
Obama? Not the most accomplished. In fact, without adequate grades and zero published works, potentially the least accomplished.
So, naturally, the assumption must be that he was galactically qualified!
H8ters!
@Yancey,
"Clinton didn't bounce back and win reelection after impeachment and acquittal- the next presidential election was lost by his successor."
Yeah, you're right. His party (Dems) "unexpectedly" did better than expected in the 1998 midterms (at least, that was the media spin.)
The Clinton impeachment, however, did drive his personal approval numbers down, which persuaded Gore to cut him out of the campaign in 2000, which some argue was a tactical error that allowed Bush to squeak by.
@Michael K,
Heh! I refused to be seduced by wishful thinking!
"Yeah, but if we were a bit more Machiavellian, we'd shut up, say nice things about her, and encourage her to run again in 2020 -- only to lose for the 3rd time."
Hmmmmm... a tempting prospect. I can think of few things that would give me more pleasure than seeing Hillary Clinton lose another Presidential election. Makes my toes curl to think about it. But I'm not sure it's worth a full year or more of worrying that she might win. Maybe we can settle for watching her get kicked to the curb by her fellow Democrats during the early primaries? If she's still above ground and not in prison, you know she'll run.
Known Unknown: "If Tribe were a host on CNN or part of the 'unbiased' media, this would have more of a point."
Did the host doin' the hostest-in' with the mostest-in' call Tribe out on that statement?
Spoiler: No.
Complicit!
Michael K said...
Now we have five straight data points of the GOP in the lead or a virtual tie, and 48 hours-plus of this data being available to all media covering the 2018 midterms.
Turnout will be high for a midterm.
If democrats are lucky they will outperform their usual failures in midterms. The wealthy will spend insane amounts of money in support of democrats.
Democrats will win most of their urban districts with 80-90% of the vote.
Republicans will win their districts with 60-70% of the vote.
It will be a wipe out.
Us deplorables aren't privy to what was on Obama's double-secret resume/application. We just need to trust our betters.
Bay Area Guy said...
Yeah, but if we were a bit more Machiavellian, we'd shut up, say nice things about her, and encourage her to run again in 2020 -- only to lose for the 3rd time.
It doesn't really matter who they run. What matters is how people are doing.
Wages are going up for the first time in decades. If that continues the democrats could run Jesus Christ and Trump would still win. A Nobel, or Nobel snub, would only cement the victory.
Michael K and Achilles give me hope for humanity!
That Reuters/Ipsos poll is mind-boggling. A 6 point GOP lead? How did that happen?
Don't get cocky, kids.
BAG: "2. However, if the Dems win back the House, Yes, they will impeach Trump, regardless of any evidence, regardless of whether Mueller produces a timely report. They've been talking about impeachment since the inauguration!"
I predict Mueller and his deep staters have no other choice, given the circumstances and what is emerging, but to go Full Ted Stevens/Tom Delay/Michael Flynn/WI JohnDoeI/II/III/ScooterLibby, despite it breaking all the rules.
I would expect Mueller to force a Constitutional Crisis in October, before the election and to issue an indictment for "lying" to investigators.
Mueller will use Comey's many contradictory statements and records and memos to set up a no-win scenario for Trump wherein ANY recollection offered by Trump will run counter to any number of Comey inputs and Mueller and his team of dem hacks will establish Comey's version as "The Absolute Truth" baseline.
Sure, an indictment will not survive a year in the courts and under judicial review...but that's not the point.
The point is to use the investigation to complete the dems oppo research, leak everything to their MSM allies, dirty up Trump, attack any potential Trump ally and future ally to send a message to all businesses and people that they will be targets in the future if they support Trump, etc.
The rectifying of Mueller's overreach will come long after the election where, from the Mueller perspective, the dems will take back the house and shut down all oversight of the Brennan/Comey/Clapper/Lynch/Obama/Hillary cabal.
Perhaps he hadn't planned on someone reading his book.
Perhaps he didn't write it.
I believe I heard at the time (1993?) he was elected Pres of HLR that he was the only one who could get along with both sides, IOW a compromise candidate. He didn't manage to do that as POTUS--or didn't try.
Like Souter, the lack of a paper trail was a feature, not a bug for those who put him in office.
Jupiter: "Yeah, but if we were a bit more Machiavellian, we'd shut up, say nice things about her, and encourage her to run again in 2020 -- only to lose for the 3rd time."
Hillary needs no encouragement and she knows in the end the dems/left/LLR's will shut up and do as they are told.
Ralph L: "Like Souter, the lack of a paper trail was a feature, not a bug for those who put him in office."
We still know nothing about his time at Columbia, we know that his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and radical islamists was covered up (LATimes STILL sitting on that little obama/islamist confab in LA from before his election), etc.
Almost as if someone looked around and said hey, here is a long term asset which just might pay off big if properly protected and cultivated.....
Lawrence Tribe is out to lunch on Trump, but this is much ado about nothing. It was an obvious and good analogy. I loathe anyone groveling to the self-appointed outrage brigade.
Hillary needs no encouragement and she knows in the end the dems/left/LLR's will shut up and do as they are told.
Some of her motivation might be the requests for refunds from big influence buyers who are not well socialized. Arabs and such.
I loathe anyone groveling to the self-appointed outrage brigade.
We'll never get rid of them until we enforce the same rules on the Left that they impose on the Right.
@Drago,
I would expect Mueller to force a Constitutional Crisis in October, before the election and to issue an indictment for "lying" to investigators.
A good reason for Trump to NOT answer any questions from Mueller, force him to serve a subpoena, and then move to quash the subpoena -- to be resolved after the mid-terms.
As always, the Right's speech is violence.
The Left's violence is speech.
This will not end well. It never does.
I've never been a fan of Glenn Beck -- not a bad guy, just not my style.
He's been a pretty devout #NeverTrumper, but now he is saying that the Media bias against Trump is so outlandish and so over the top that he is joining (or rejoining) the Trump camp. He thinks there are large numbers moving in the same direction.
I hope he's right.
but as one who works hard to reduce gun violence
Doing what specifically?
We need to encourage these killers to masturbate more. How about phrasing like "Impeachment is not a cum wad that can be readily jerked-off twice..."
I've never been a fan of 'whataboutism' and I see nothing wrong with Tribe's choice of metaphorical language.
Sorry. No.
The left must be bludgeoned with the rules they impose upon everybody else. That's the only way this shit stops.
@Gahrie:
We'll never get rid of them until we enforce the same rules on the Left that they impose on the Right.
So if "we enforce the same rules on the Left that they impose on the Right," we will "get rid of them?" How?
BAG: "A good reason for Trump to NOT answer any questions from Mueller, force him to serve a subpoena, and then move to quash the subpoena -- to be resolved after the mid-terms."
I think that is the plan given what Trump tweeted re: use of the investigation to attack republicans.
Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor. - ARM
Unless of course it’s Sarah Palin. Don’t you even care about your credibility Beloved?
I’ve never been a fan of 'whataboutism' and I see nothing wrong with Tribe's choice of metaphorical language.
Me neither, but I like rank hypocrisy even less.
Democrats have made it clear that “impeachable” is whatever they say it is, and it could be that they just don’t like that he beat Hillary.
Tribe has a book to sell. He knew exactly what he was doing when he used the inflammatory language.
The theoretical black hole is actually a gray hole, where rackets are run, protections are paid, and politics progress, but perhaps no longer.
Drago. You said that Harvard changed its rules to allow Obama to get in law review. You now acknowledge that was not accurate since the writing competition was added decades before Obama attended.
So what is your evidence that Obama's writing was not sufficient to make the grade. Also, all student articles in the Review are unsigned so the fact that his name does not appear on any such articles is a meaningless statement.
The rules weren't changed to benefit Obama, but to benefit people like Obama.
Steve Uhr: "So what is your evidence that Obama's writing was not sufficient to make the grade."
He produced no published works. That was a change. Particularly for the President of the Law Review.
From a politico article by Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner:
"One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned "notes" from Harvard students."
Later on, Ressner and Smith, after much additional digging, were finally able to scrape up a single case analysis that obama produced.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/exclusive-obamas-lost-law-review-article-012705
"As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship."
Prodigious.
Remember, it's obambi. Every ONE word he writes is equivalent to 287,692 words produced by any other mere mortal writers.
It will be interesting to see what Steve Uhr's next fallback position is.
J. Farmer said...
@Gahrie:
We'll never get rid of them until we enforce the same rules on the Left that they impose on the Right.
So if "we enforce the same rules on the Left that they impose on the Right," we will "get rid of them?" How?
There are 2 options:
1. Use their tactics against them and defeat them.
2. Wipe them out.
If they win they will do what they always do and start murdering huge chunks of the society through violence and starvation while imposing a fascist police state. It is what they do.
In any event its perfectly acceptable for any leftist to use eliminationist rhetoric anywhere for any reason.
Because....shut up H8ters....
steve uhr said...
So what is your evidence that Obama's writing was not sufficient to make the grade.
The first clue is he didn't write anything.
obama's writings are too important to share with mere humans....
Kushner security cleerance restored.
"Ben Rhodes republican" Chuck hardest hit.
Sharyl Atkisson is a good independent journalist, who was banged up by the Obama DOJ.
She survived, but the experience knocked the leftism out of her.
Here's her concise piece on the corrupt Obama DOJ and corrupt Obama FBI.
“Unmasking” — identifying protected names of Americans captured by government surveillance — was frequently deployed by at least four top Obama officials who have subsequently spoken out against President Trump: James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence; Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Susan Rice, former national security adviser; Sally Yates, former deputy attorney general.
Names of Americans caught communicating with monitored foreign targets must be “masked,” or hidden within government agencies, so the names cannot be misused or shared.
However, it’s been revealed that Power made near-daily unmasking requests in 2016.
Prior to that revelation, Clapper claimed ignorance. When asked if he knew of unmasking requests by any ambassador, including Power, he testified: “I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not — I could not answer with any confidence.”
Rice admitted to asking for unmasked names of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports after initially claiming no knowledge of any such thing.
Clapper also admitted to requesting the unmasking of “Mr. Trump, his associates or any members of Congress.” Clapper and Yates admitted they also personally reviewed unmasked documents and shared unmasked material with other officials.
"So if "we enforce the same rules on the Left that they impose on the Right," we will "get rid of them?" How?"
A good and important question. It's a matter of power. The reason that there is unfairness here is that one side is willing and ABLE to sanction the other, but the opposite fails on the ABLE part.
It's why the traditional Republican intellectual class is so useless. They can righteously complain about whatever but they cannot impose their views on their opponents. They can't even survive without censoring themselves.
Assuming he did not get on the review on grades, he got on through the writing competition. So obviously he did write something. And he also wrote at least one comment in the review according to Drago
Law reviews publish articles of persons other than students. The students edit the articles. I assure you that Obama worked well over 50 hours per year just as editor of the law review. Prob 75 or more. He also had his classes, and had to plan his presidential run. You can call him what you want but he was not a slacker in law school.
from Ressner and Smith article about O'bama's unsigned case analysis:
...seemed to demonstrate his continuing commitment to abortion rights, and suggested that the government may have more important concerns than "ensuring that any particular fetus is born."
It Always Amazed me that O'bama would be So Committed to abortion rights.
Imagine that in 1961, abortion rights had been prevalent in Hawaii
Does anyone (CAN Anyone) think that Stanley would have carried O'Bama to term?
Does anyone (CAN Anyone) think that Stanley would have carried O'Bama to term?
That is a nightmare hypothetical alternate universe- in that universe, New York City is part of the Atlantic Ocean as of today's date. (shivering with fear/delight?)
Steve Uhr: " I assure you that Obama worked well over 50 hours per year just as editor of the law review."
LOL
Steve Uhr: "You can call him what you want but he was not a slacker in law school."
What were his grades again?
Next up for Steve Uhr: How do YOU know obama didn't secretly, without any tangible record or evidence, advance the cause of peace and deserve the Nobel?
LOL
I mean, have you seen the sharp creases in obama's slacks?
Drago, I was trying to figure out whether or not that was a typo on Steve's part, but if he was serious.....wow!
Trump did not just beat Hillary. He blew away the CIA's rigged voting machines and the CIA owned and operated media operation. It is for such a bold crime that he must be impeached by Congress, or in the alternative shot down in an ambush.Tribe is sending a message loud and clear.
Crazy Trump's only way out now is for the entire corrupt CIA Shadow Government system to be arrested and tried by Miltary Tribunals. Stay tuned.
I think that Tribe is right here - a Dem House impeaching Trump is suicidal for the Dem party. As has been suggested, if you strike at the king, you had better kill him, and that just isn’t going to happen here. The Senate numbers, combined with Trump’s approval numbers, make it impossible. The first big problem that the Dems face is that they have most of the seats up for election this time, and esp the vulnerable ones where their states went for Trump. If they somehow manage to run the table, and get control of the Senate, their margin of control would be by a seat or two. This means that they would need 15-16 Republican votes for removal. That might be possible if serious crimes by Trump can be shown AND his approval rating is in the toilet - probably below maybe 25%. Otherwise, any Republican Senators voting for removal can expect to never get a Republican nomination for anything, even dog catcher, in the future. Sure, they might get John McCain’s vote, but that would probably be it. Far short of the approximately 1/3 of the Republican caucus that they would need, esp with Trump’s approval running roughly 50% - since that number depends on a lot of Blue State voters who don’t have Republican Senators.
The problems start with the reality that the new Dem House majority would mostly be from Trump voting districts. They vote for impeachment, and they can forget reelection in 2020. Sure, Pelosi, etc, can force them to vote for impeachment, as they did for Obamacare in 2009, but the results will be the same - a big Republican House seatpickup in the next election.
Moreover, Trump has a vindictive side. The top tier of the Obama Administration is mostly being left alone here right now. Administrations don’t prosecute their predecessors’ Administration because they don’t want that precedent used against them after they leave office. Arguably Obama, and probably his VP, are immune from prosecution for anything that they did while in office. But it stops there, and much of what his second term Administration did would still be within the statute of limitations. Crimes can easily be found that they committed. Heck, even seeing illegally unmasked USPERS identities in NSA generated FISA Title VII intercepts is probably criminal for many of them, and Yates and her boss Lynch would be on the hook for illegally blessing it. Clapper and Brennan very likely violated a number of other federal laws with their actions with Spygate. Having leaked to the press typically violates federal law too, including the Espionage Act if the information was classified. And, then you have the Hatch Act. They, along with anyone else who worked to defeat Trump or elect Crooked Hillary are also guilty of Hatch Act violations. And finally, you have the sort of process crimes that tripped up Flynn, along with many others like Martha Stewart. And Obama won’t have the power to pardon them. I should add that the Espionage Act might even be used against several Dem members of the Gang of 8, including Schaffer, for their leaks of classified information.
Obama's grades really don't matter. The current average grade at Harvard is an A-.
I know former colleagues who earned Ph.D.s in Psychology at Yale, Harvard and Stanford. The latter is the most prestigious program in the country. All three told me that it is a lot harder to get in than it is to graduate.
The USAF had a similar grading system for pilots. They assume that everyone in the program was a 10/10 because they were in the program. Promotions were not based on ratings/grades because they did not different one person from another, as in prestigious grad schools.
Now we have five straight data points of the GOP in the lead or a virtual tie, and 48 hours-plus of this data being available to all media covering the 2018 midterms.
The only 2018 poll that counts will happen on November 6th. I do like the trend, but let’s keep eyes on the prize. Five and a half months to go.
Sorry, that was Adam Schiff, not “Schaffer” against whom the Espionage Act could be utilized for his fairly well documented leaks of classified information. His Senate counterpart is likely in the same situation.
Francisco D: "The USAF had a similar grading system for pilots. They assume that everyone in the program was a 10/10 because they were in the program."
Ahhhh yes. The luxury of 10,000' runways....and magnificent golf courses...and delightful Officers Clubs.
Naval Aviation however, a bit more.....spartan.
Preposterous kerfuffle ... much ado about nothing. Get Over It!
Preposterous kerfuffle ... much ado about nothing. Get Over It!
Sorry William.
One set of rules amigo. One set of rules....
I haven't found another spot to put this but I have to say I am impressed with Trump's decision to put John Kelly in charge of straightening out Rosenstein, Wray and Coates on what goes to Congress regarding "spygate". I presume Trump got them together the other to day to let them know how he felt about their performance ( otherwise known as an ass chewing) and he has now put his hard-nosed executive officer in charge of making sure that their performance improves. A good exercise of command.
I loved seeing Tribe caught with his pants around his ankles. People in academia have the misperception that they are a protected class. Always nice to see that bubble burst.
"Ado" is a funny word. It's almost always used in that phrase above "MAAN"
You never hear, "Man, this blog is boring as hell. We could sure use a lot more ado here."
By his tweets, the President causes ado in the minds of Leftwingers.
All three told me that it is a lot harder to get in than it is to graduate.
I have thought for years that it would be preferable for Harvard to just charge the four year tuition and grant the degree.
It's already been shown that Harvard freshmen are more informed than seniors.
Who is Badger Pundit? Now I know about something called Badger Pundit...sigh. Harvard schools graduating all week! Today, was my fave school-the fab Kennedy School is graduating today. The city is rocking dolls.
tits.
Preposterous kerfuffle ... much ado about nothing. Get Over It!
In other words...Move On?
Preposterous kerfuffle ... much ado about nothing. Get Over It!
And yet the president calling a bunch of illegal alien, murderous criminal MS-13 thugs "animals" is of Earth shattering importance.
I assure you that Obama worked well over 50 hours per year just as editor of the law review.
You might do well to do some reading. Obama was NEVER EDITOR of the Law Review.
I know this is a shock, what with his pictures on your walls and all, but do try to pay attention.
Although 50 hours a year might be close.
From the Harvard Law School Parody 2005, "I'm Larry Tribe"
He studied math, he studied law
And he's the most prolific scholar
That the whole world ever saw
He's drafted foreign constitutions
He's the president of Spain
In the book they say he copied
He thanked Clinton aide Ron Klain
He's ten feet tall
He learned to fly
And though he'll never be a justice
He's never gonna die
He is the Sultan of Sudan
He is the closer for the Sox
And the legal fees he charges
Make him richer than Fort Knox
He's Jesus Christ
He's Larry Tribe
Not just Harvard's best professor
But the smartest man alive
He's got forty-one degrees
He speaks fluent Japanese
He's Larry Tribe
He's Larry Tribe
“I haven't found another spot to put this but I have to say I am impressed with Trump's decision to put John Kelly in charge of straightening out Rosenstein, Wray and Coates on what goes to Congress regarding "spygate". I presume Trump got them together the other to day to let them know how he felt about their performance ( otherwise known as an ass chewing) and he has now put his hard-nosed executive officer in charge of making sure that their performance improves. A good exercise of command.”
I pointed out last weekend that this was maybe bigger news than the 4th OIG referral, occasioned by Trump’s demand tweet. The Deep State has been playing Hide the Information with Congress fhrough claims of national security, for better than a year now. Trump just effectively blew this obstruction up with this move. They can’t tell Trump that he can’t see any classified information he wants to see, at any time. Part of his Article II Executive power is that he is the ultimate classifier and declassified in the country. Any power that govt employees have to classify, view, or declassify information is derivative of his own power. They can’t tell him “no”, and had better not tell his chief of staff “no” either, or Gen Kelly will fetch his boss, and they don’t really want that. I have little doubt that the investigating Congressional committee chairs are going to use this when needed, and threaten to use it the rest of the time that they are thwarted in their oversight by recalcitrant govt employees using classification as a shield from accountability.
steve uhr said...
Drago. You said that Harvard changed its rules to allow Obama to get in law review. You now acknowledge that was not accurate since the writing competition was added decades before Obama attended.
So what is your evidence that Obama's writing was not sufficient to make the grade. Also, all student articles in the Review are unsigned so the fact that his name does not appear on any such articles is a meaningless statement."
Obama wrote one unsigned article for the Law Review. TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES. It was acknowledged at the time that he had done very little writing. Politico found the article.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/exclusive-obamas-lost-law-review-article-012705
Always previously the editor/President was the person who had done the most for the Law Review in the previous year. That was not Obama. So unspoken rules were changed for Obama. But in my opinion, there was a reason to choose him.
The reason Obama was selected, in my opinion, is that he was prominent supporter of Derrick Bell, the founder of critical race theory. There was an on going dispute at Harvard at the time of Obama's election over critical race theory, a dispute which had gone national. Bell was accusing Harvard of racism in its selection of law professors and had been since 1986. Bell had a different approach to the law, one which others who believe in it have said emphasizes "storytelling." I think this means you tell the story of oppression, you explain how things seem to the person you represent, more so than you cite legal precedents. Here is Derrick Bell in 19 pages explaining the theory in relation to the Bell Curve. https://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Bell_Whos%20Afraid%20of%20CRT_1995UIllLRev893.pdf; Here is a PhD student talking about critical race theory, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol18/jones.pdf
Many felt this storytelling / law mix was not what the law was about. In this controversy, Obama supported Derrick Bell. So in the year Obama was elected the Harvard Law Review was electing an Editor (or President) who represented a novel legal approach then at the forefront of national attention. Under Obama the Harvard Law Review did present articles on critical race theory. So they got what they wanted. Obama did not display a keen legal intellect; instead he used a controversy over race to gain a prestigious job. Thereafter he let others do the work, work they wanted to do.
Michael K said...
You might do well to do some reading. Obama was NEVER EDITOR of the Law Review.
I'm not sure how you could be so obviously wrong about something verifiable by a simple Google search. Are you referring to some private knowledge from a decade old e-mail chain?
Micheal. I meant to say president. What's your point? The president is also an editor. Not simply a figure head.
"Ahhhh yes. The luxury of 10,000' runways....and magnificent golf courses...and delightful Officers Clubs.
Naval Aviation however, a bit more.....spartan."
Officers Clubs where you wear an ascot with your clean and pressed fight suit ... and being met at the aircraft by a van to drive you to Base Ops rather than having to walk across the flight line ... and Base Ops facilities that aren't "temporary" buildings from WWII ... and box lunches that could feed a family for a week, and aren't just a "horse cock" sandwich and a piece of fruit ...
"It's already been shown that Harvard freshmen are more informed than seniors."
You can tell a freshman by his silly, eager look,
You can tell a sophomore ’cause he carries one less book
You can tell a junior by his fancy airs and such
You can tell a senior, but you can’t tell him much.
Micheal. I meant to say president. What's your point? The president is also an editor. Not simply a figure head.
Not when Obama was the president.
steve uhr said...
Assuming he did not get on the review on grades, he got on through the writing competition. So obviously he did write something. And he also wrote at least one comment in the review according to Drago
Law reviews publish articles of persons other than students. The students edit the articles. I assure you that Obama worked well over 50 hours per year just as editor of the law review. Prob 75 or more. He also had his classes, and had to plan his presidential run. You can call him what you want but he was not a slacker in law school.
Obama was so proud of his work at college he had his records sealed.
So far there is one "review" people have credited Obama "writing."
When he didn't have a teleprompter telling him what to say it was clear Obama was a mediocre mind at best.
I don't think it was a gaffe when he said if we just inflate our tires properly we can save 3% of our fuel use.
He is actually just an idiot.
Just like he thought he could get away with spying on political opponents. Supwise! You so stoopeed!
Together We Thrive
@Bruce Hayden I remember you noting this, but it took a bit for the details to sink in so I could understand what is going on. It is my fervent hope that Kelly exercises an old Marine Corps practice of 'kicking ass, and taking names"!
Tribe shot himself in the foot.
Scott Adams addresses LLR, Inga and ARM:
Four things to understand about SPYGATE; 1) There was no spy in the Trump campaign. 2) The spying that did NOT happen was totally justified. 3) It would be bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn't exist. His name is Stefan #Spygate
AA should leave us a cafe post before they move out in the mornings.
I agree with Bruce Hayden — Tribe's essential message was correct: "promiscuous invocation" of impeachment has the perverse effect of preventing impeachment. Do you see, Larry? Do you see? This is what happens when you fuck a strange metaphor in its ass. Do you see, Larry?
Mr Wibble said...
This whole thing is stupid.
It's another version of "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." The people freaking out over it are idiots.
Nobody is freaking out over this. We're noting that when lefties freak out about violent imagery even they know they're lying.
"This whole thing is stupid.
It's another version of "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." The people freaking out over it are idiots."
Nope.
Just insisting on one set of rules for everyone.
One. Set. Of. Rules.
The Kennedy School is, well, one of those places with an entirely negative effect on the world.
It may be hard to find an educational institution that has done more damage per graduate, outside of certain institutions in China probably, and that's just because of economies of scale.
The Kennedy School is, well, one of those places with an entirely negative effect on the world. It may be hard to find an educational institution that has done more damage per graduate, outside of certain institutions in China probably, and that's just because of economies of scale.
Yeah, Nixon should not have abolished the Draft in Vietnam, but instead drafted all these Ivy League Graduate students and other college pukes. That woulda shaped them up.
Lib/Dems should be beaten.
Brilliant 'gotcha', Althouse...Bravo!
New page!!!
Post a Comment