Congratulations!

This is mean, but so funny.

2006 BMW 530i Great Deal

2006 BMW 530i Great Deal: "Incredible driving car and I hate to sell the car, but we have one too many cars and this great car needs to go. Thanks for looking
Possible trade for Yamaha Rhino, Polaris Rzr, waverunner, 1967 Camaro, 1968 Camaro, 1969 Camaro "

'via Blog this'

You think maybe this seller is being less than candid?

The Corner - National Review Online

The Corner - National Review Online: "As Yoda says, every time Disney makes a new franchise acquisition, a Jedi gets his lightsaber. Or something. "

'via Blog this'

Did POTUS just say we leave nobody behind? #Benghazi #hewitt
— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) October 30, 2012

Benghazi and Watergate

Is there a principled difference between the Watergate and Benghazi scandals?

The Watergate scandal occurred when Nixon's surrogates broke into the Democrat party's headquarters (Watergate hotel) to wiretap phones and steal campaign secrets. They were caught. A question arose as to whether the president or his people were involved in planning the break in. The president recorded conversations potentially relevant to the investigation, but refused to give them up to the special prosecutor. When the special prosecutor requested the tapes, Nixon had him fired. Eventually the Supreme Court orders Nixon to release the tapes to a subsequent prosecutor, which he did, however, a part of the tapes was erased. The tapes also tend to show Nixon took action to cover up the break in. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

The Benghazi scandal is the result of an attack on the American embassy killing four Americans, including our ambassador. Before the attack, the embassy requested additional security, but was denied. During the 8 hour attack, reports say the embassy requested back-up, but again the request was denied. Some have surmised that the drones or a gunship overhead could have provided support if they had been allowed, but they were not. Others reports indicate that general Ham ordered a rescue team to go in against his orders, and so he was promptly relieved of his duty.  Failure to deliver back up was blamed on the CIA, but the CIA promptly denied that it had refused the request for back up. For weeks, the attack was blamed on a flash mob responding to an obscure Mohammed video. However, intelligence available almost immediately, combined with the length (8 hours), nature (planning and use of RPGs),and date of the attack (September 11) all indicated that it was not a spontaneous demonstration, but a planned terrorist attack. Nevertheless, the Administration had a civilian arrested for the video. The Administration is refusing to answer questions about whether the embassy requested back up.

Do you think there is a principled difference between the two? And which is worse? Some arguments both ways:

• They are different and Watergate is much worse. The Watergate burglary itself was illegal. Regardless of whether Nixon sanctioned the break-in, the cover up that he participated in was obstruction of justice and warranted removing the president. (But then, Clinton, too, should have been removed from office.)
• Rejoinder: there is no distinction on this point. Nixon was the head of a coequal branch of government, and the Supreme Court has no authority over what he released if he deems it a mater of national security. Nixon was well within his power to refuse to release the tapes. In fact, if illegality is what matters, Benghazi is worse. Obama actually violated the law when he had the filmmaker arrested in the middle of the night.
• One possible distinction here is that Nixon paid "hush" money to the burglars, which I'm guessing is illegal. Although it's quite similar to Clinton having Monica Lewinsky placed in a cushy job after her internship, for which she was not qualified.
• Watergate is worse, because Benghazi is a foreign policy matter. The President is the Commander-in-Chief and is given the discretion to fight military conflicts and conduct foreign policy. If we distrust his judgment, the remedy is political, not legal.
• The two scandals are different in their implications for the damage they do to our democratic system of government. Our government and political system only work if politicians campaign within the rules, i.e., legal limits. The burglary, although ineffectual, had it worked, would undermine the entire American political system.
• Rejoinder: Johnson successfully wiretapped Goldwater, and that incident isn't even a footnote in the history books. Similarly, some reports indicate that Kennedy actually stole the 1960 election, and no one seems to think this has undermined our system of government.
• Benghazi is like Watergate, but much worse. Both are politically damaging scandals for the president. Both involve cover-ups. Both involve stonewalling. But Watergate was an amateur-hour burglary, with no serious repercussions. In contrast, four people died in Benghazi because of the President's or his Administration's bungling. Then an innocent person was arrested to provide political cover for the president.

Am I missing any good arguments?

Socialized Medicine Can Kill, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Socialized Medicine Can Kill, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty: "A 29-year-old woman will die without a new drug that the NHS is refusing to provide despite the manufacturer offering it to her for free, it emerged today.
Caroline Cassin, 29, who suffers from Cystic Fibrosis (CF) has been offered a new drug free of charge for a limited period by the makers but her NHS hospital is refusing."

'via Blog this'

Instapundit » Blog Archive » HORROR: I have no words to say how horrified I am at Benghazi and at the Administration’s behavior…

Instapundit » Blog Archive » HORROR:  I have no words to say how horrified I am at Benghazi and at the Administration’s behavior…: "HORROR:  I have no words to say how horrified I am at Benghazi and at the Administration’s behavior through it and their cover up now.  I keep thinking anyone with a shred of decency left would own up just out of guilt.  A friend sent me this, which captures the stark horror of it for me.

Sorry if I seem to be harping on it.  When it happened I was sick with grief — its coming as it did on 9/11 — and now I’m sick with anger.  Where is nemesis when you need it?  How can the president be offended at questions while his hands drip with the blood of people who depended on him?  He is at the very least guilty of gross dereliction of duty.  And if he didn’t know about it, WHY NOT?"

'via Blog this'

Amen.

Althouse: "Over the weekend, the newest, and by far the most disturbing, revelations surrounding the Benghazi attack were revealed."

Althouse: "Over the weekend, the newest, and by far the most disturbing, revelations surrounding the Benghazi attack were revealed.": "The decision to stand down as the Benghazi terrorist attack was underway was met with extreme opposition from the inside. The Washington Times's James Robbins, citing a source inside the military, reveals that General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, who got the same emails requesting help received by the White House, put a rapid response team together and notified the Pentagon it was ready to go. He was ordered to stay put. “His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow,” writes Robbins. “Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”"

'via Blog this'

I'd say unbelievable, but sadly, I find if very believable. This makes me furious.

Why I’m voting for Romney - NYPOST.com

Why I’m voting for Romney - NYPOST.com: "Finally, there is temperament. Romney’s firm, steady demeanor during Obama’s rancid attempts at character assassination demonstrates the presidential character lacking in the incumbent. That’s the change I want for my country."

'via Blog this'

Why I’m voting for Romney - NYPOST.com

Why I’m voting for Romney - NYPOST.com: "My choice involved a simple calculation. Would John McCain or Obama be more likely to forge a consensus on big issues? America was dangerously polarized, and unable to act in ways that even 60 percent of the public could support. History shows that paralysis leads to disaster."

'via Blog this'

Does history really show "paralysis leads to disaster"? What are some examples?

Girls of 13 given birth control jab at school without parents’ knowledge - Telegraph

Girls of 13 given birth control jab at school without parents’ knowledge - Telegraph: "Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, said: “I think that sexual intercourse is the very highest and most mature spiritual relationship that can exist between two human beings.

“Anything that trivialises or treats it as something mundane or easy, particularly for young people, is damaging their ability to grow up and to properly form a loving lasting relationship. It devalues sex, it makes it like an ordinary, everyday thing like going to have a McDonald’s.”"

'via Blog this'

Girls of 13 given birth control jab at school without parents’ knowledge - Telegraph

Girls of 13 given birth control jab at school without parents’ knowledge - Telegraph: "School nurses have given implants or jabs to girls aged between 13 and 16 more than 900 times in the past two years, a survey by The Daily Telegraph has found. Girls aged 13 have been given contraceptive jabs and implants on more than 20 occasions."

'via Blog this'

Important correction: In my weekend column, I wrote that President Obama’s virgin-sacrifice campaign ad was lifted from Vladimir Putin. I deeply regret this appalling error. In turns out, Putin got it from Australia’s Green Party Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young. Our friends at Quadrant have the full story with cringe-making video. So, if you’re an impressionable liberal anxious to lose your virginity to a bold forceful leader, pick a politician who’s big Down Under. (Titter.)

Update: I should say that this and the last post are quotes from Mark Steyn. My tablet doesn't make it obvious when I am blogging quotations.

If voting for Obama is like the first time you have sex, it’s very difficult to lose your virginity twice. A flailing, pitiful campaign has now adopted Queen Victoria’s supposed wedding advice to her daughter: “Lie back and think of England.” Lie back and think of America. And then get up and get dressed. Who wants to sleep with a $16 trillion broke loser twice?

NBA’s David Stern: Obama always goes left - Patrick Gavin - POLITICO.com

NBA’s David Stern: Obama always goes left - Patrick Gavin - POLITICO.com: "For all the buzz about President Barack Obama’s skills on the basketball court, the NBA’s commissioner, David Stern, thinks the hype is overblown.

“He’s not that good,” Stern, who announced Thursday he is retiring in 2014, said in an interview with Reuters. “He’s a lefty, he goes the same way every time.”"

'via Blog this'

Althouse

Althouse: "What kind of case has Mr. Romney made for himself?... The sad answer is there is no way to know what Mr. Romney really believes.
ADDED: There's no way to know what Obama really believes either. It's mentally unbalanced to allow such pedestrian realities to make you sad."

'via Blog this'

Why I Love the Electoral College, Garett Jones | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Why I Love the Electoral College, Garett Jones | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty: "And that's great news for social peace.  We rarely hear too much about regional issues in the U.S. other than farmers vs. everyone else.  But if the presidency was decided by majority rule, I'm sure we'd hear a lot more about regional differences.  Could a presidential candidate get 75% of the votes in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida by promising broad-based Gulf Coast subsidies and a few other goodies?  Could a candidate get 85% of California's and New York's votes partly by offering housing subsidies for people facing high housing costs?  "

'via Blog this'

Instapundit » Blog Archive » A DEBATE-INSPIRED HYPOTHETICAL: “Say you’re a police investigator, and you find a dead body with no …

Instapundit » Blog Archive » A DEBATE-INSPIRED HYPOTHETICAL: “Say you’re a police investigator, and you find a dead body with no …: "A DEBATE-INSPIRED HYPOTHETICAL: “Say you’re a police investigator, and you find a dead body with no clear cause of death. It’s a high-profile case, and the public wants to know if there was foul play. You give a press conference in which you say, ‘One thing’s for sure: no act of murder will ever shake our resolve.’ By making that statement, have you announced that the person was definitely murdered?…”"

'via Blog this'

Cafe Hayek — where orders emerge

Cafe Hayek — where orders emerge: "Yesterday’s presidential debate further exposed Messrs. Obama’s and Romney’s economic illiteracy (“China a Punching Bag in U.S. Presidential Debate,” Oct. 17).  Each man insists that America’s economy can be harmed by inexpensive imports – in other words, harmed by opportunities for voluntary exchanges that lower Americans’ cost of living.

By promising to raise taxes on Americans who buy Chinese-made goods, Mr. Romney again promised to break his campaign promise to not raise taxes.  That he is unaware of the contradiction isn’t promising.

Mr. Obama is no better.  He bragged that he “saved a thousand jobs” with his “tough” trade action that – by raising taxes on Americans who buy Chinese-made tires – ensured “that China was not flooding our domestic market with cheap tires.”"


'via Blog this'

I, of course, agree that the economic arguments made in the debate were less than stellar economics. Maybe they believe what they say. But I like to think this is more a product of the candidates saying what they believe the public wants to hear--specifically what the swing voters want to hear.

Should be blame the candidates for being illiterate, or the voters who decide elections?

Maybe I'll post this at Cafe Hayek.

Instapundit

Instapundit: "Eric Hobsbawm took part in one of the most extraordinary conversations ever on British television. Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, the historian was asked how he felt about his earlier support for the Soviet Union.

If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people – as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China – would Hobsbawm have supported it? His answer was a single word: ‘Yes’."

'via Blog this'

Ryan’s Debate Strategy - Robert Costa - National Review Online

Ryan’s Debate Strategy - Robert Costa - National Review Online: "Eventually, Ryan, Olson, and the rest of the team settled on a game plan: Ryan would ignore the slights. He would resist the bait. He’d stay above the fray.

It was an easy decision. In private, Ryan acknowledged that he’d never be comfortable if he concentrated on responding to Biden’s asides.

The two politicians aren’t close, but Ryan was a Senate staffer in the early 1990s and quickly became familiar with Biden’s bullying. Ryan sought a contrast.

“[Ryan] never wanted to compete with the vice president on humor,” a Ryan adviser says. “He didn’t want to memorize quips. He wanted to focus on policy.”"

'via Blog this'

Rudy Giuliani Asks Soledad O’Brien ‘Am I Debating With the President's Campaign?’ | NewsBusters.org

Rudy Giuliani Asks Soledad O’Brien ‘Am I Debating With the President's Campaign?’ | NewsBusters.org: "After some crosstalk, Giuliani continued, “This sounds like a cover-up. If this weren't a Democratic president, I think all you people would be going crazy.”"

'via Blog this'

News from The Associated Press

News from The Associated Press: "Romney's debate performance against President Barack Obama last week - and his energetic appearances following it up - have fueled a rise in enthusiasm on the campaign trail. Whether or not it will translate into votes, polls do suggest that Republicans are fired up. It's a welcome development for the Republican businessman, who is hardly a natural politician and has long struggled to match Obama's ability to inspire excitement."

'via Blog this'

You could call this development the style of substance.

White House defends Biden's debate demeanor - Washington Times

White House defends Biden's debate demeanor - Washington Times: "If Vice President Joseph R. Biden smiled too much during his debate Thursday night, the White House said the blame lies with Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and his position on the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus plan."

'via Blog this'

This is not the Onion.

A salute to Paul Ryan | Power Line

A salute to Paul Ryan | Power Line: "I find it virtually impossible to put myself in the place of undecided voters. They must surely have noticed Biden’s rudeness and Ryan’s knowledge and demeanor. Under the circumstances, I want to say that I admired the job Ryan did last night."

'via Blog this'

Me too. I don't understand swing voters well at all.

The Corner - National Review Online

The Corner - National Review Online: "This one was hard to watch, and I suspect many fewer people did watch it than watched the first presidential debate. The vice-presidential debate resembled one of those cacophonous political talk shows that call it dialogue when they encourage guests to talk over each other. Biden was the chief, almost the only, offender, but if you had listened over the radio you might have thought he won anyway, so oleaginous and unashamed was he. This was demagogy old-school style, without a trace of irony, betrayed only by the Joker-like smile. Thank goodness for television."

'via Blog this'

I did listen, and that's kind of how I felt. I'm glad the TV betrayed what a jerk Biden is.

The Corner - National Review Online

The Corner - National Review Online: "“I think unemployment is very important for now, so as of now I think (my vote) is Mitt Romney,” Lohan told reporters, including FOX411′s Pop Tarts, at the Mr. Pink Ginseng Drink Launch Party Los Angeles on Thursday night."

'via Blog this'

Is it possible that Lindsay Lohan knows her endorsement hurts more than it helps? If so, well played.

Cafe Hayek — where orders emerge

Cafe Hayek — where orders emerge: "My GMU Econ colleague Garett Jones calls it “basic microeconomics.”  (It might also be called a sensible prediction from the real denizens of the reality-based community.)  Garett is correct: when the cost of doing X rises, people will do less X.  Obamacare raises businesses’ costs of employing full-time workers, so businesses will employ fewer full-time workers than otherwise.  Garett is also correct that, as a result, economic growth will be slower and less robust than otherwise.  No amount of cheap demonizing of Obamacare’s opponents will change these facts."

'via Blog this'

Phony in Chief - Thomas Sowell - [page]

Phony in Chief - Thomas Sowell - [page]: "When President Barack Obama and others on the left are not busy admonishing the rest of us to be "civil" in our discussions of political issues, they are busy letting loose insults, accusations and smears against those who dare to disagree with them."

'via Blog this'

Scalia: Abortion, death penalty "easy" cases - CBS News

Scalia: Abortion, death penalty "easy" cases - CBS News: "He contrasted his style of interpretation with that of a colleague who tries to be true to the values of the Constitution as he applies them to a changing world. This imaginary justice goes home for dinner and tells his wife what a wonderful day he had, Scalia said.

This imaginary justice, Scalia continued, announces that it turns out " 'the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.' No kidding.""

'via Blog this'

The Morning After | Power Line

The Morning After | Power Line: "Dennis Miller: “Obama better hope a kicked a** is covered under Obamacare.”"

'via Blog this'

A Question for Brett

Do two sets of jumper cables (not chained, but simultaneously connected to both batteries) charge a dead battery faster than one set?  My boss seems to think so, but it seems to me like if you complete the circuit, the charge would be the same.

George Will: Debate questions for the presidential candidates - The Washington Post

George Will: Debate questions for the presidential candidates - The Washington Post: "or Mitt Romney: Many conservatives advocate “judicial restraint.” They denounce “judicial activism” and define it as not properly deferring to decisions by government’s majoritarian branches. Other conservatives praise “judicial engagement” and define it as actively defending liberty against overbearing majorities. Do you favor “restraint” or “engagement”? Do you reject the Kelo decision, in which the Supreme Court deferred to governments’ desire to seize private property and give it to wealthier private interests who would pay higher taxes?"

'via Blog this'


No! Most conservatives--at least the leading legal figures--certainly do not define judicial activism that way. They define it as deciding a case in a way that contradicts or goes beyond the text and original meaning of the constitution.