« It's Called "Due Process", Dana | Main | Who's to Blame When Boys Don't Go to College? »

May 10, 2010

Obama Rhetoric Watch

I loved this quote from Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray:

"As painful as it is for me to accept his choice, President Obama does have the constitutional right to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court. And, with this Senate, he has a reasonable expectation that Elena Kagan will be confirmed. But he should not consider it a certainty. Obama and Harry Reid should not try to game the process as we've seen tried so often in this Congress. Obama voted against Samuel Alito when he was in the Senate, so he should naturally be willing to afford each senator that same privilege of advice and consent he once enjoyed."

I'm not holding my breath. More from Mr. Gray here:


All too often these days, government goes too far in covering up for bad decisions. Take, for example, how the government - and, by extension, the rest of the taxpaying public - is now covering for people who callously spent beyond their means on items such as luxury houses and cars.

When government tries to make up for someone's faulty use of their freedom, the freedom of all is put at risk. No good can come from essentially rewarding bad behavior with a bailout.

We can talk about "safety nets" all day long. I don't dispute the validity of the concept. It strikes a pleasant chord with my own sense of morality. I fear, however, that too much emphasis is placed on getting people into the net rather than their getting out of the net once they are in it.

If a man is unable to stand, I will help him stand. If he is able, but not willing... well, the ground can be a cold, hard place.

Amen.

Posted by Cassandra at May 10, 2010 05:05 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3658

Comments

Thanks for posting my comments . . .

V/R
Rdozier

Posted by: rdozier gray at May 10, 2010 05:29 PM

It's always a joy to come across well written and reasoned commentary.

My pleasure :)

Posted by: Cassandra at May 10, 2010 06:15 PM

More sensibility from Mr. Gray:

"To me, freedom - at its core - is the ability for people to act of their own volition and subsequently reaping the rewards or suffering the consequences of their actions. People should have the freedom to act or speak and prosper, but also the freedom to act or speak and fail.

A person's free will is usually naturally restricted by their individual morality. The golden rule - treating people as you would like to be treated - often comes into play, leading people to adjust their ability to prosper greatly so that others may prosper some.

That is a process of our individual morality and our individual free will."

I would call this agency to act or be acted upon. I would also say that that would be the moral basis for a free society. I have been working on that essay for Grim in between screeching over the existence of the IRS and
other yssues.

Posted by: Cricket at May 10, 2010 07:33 PM

I look forward to it, ma'am.

Posted by: Grim at May 10, 2010 08:01 PM

Word! If you fall, especially while riding your unicycle on a high wire, a safety net is nice. But if that happens, you should be *embarrassed*, and you should get your bare ass and unicycle back up on that high wire as soon as possible.

Posted by: man riding unicycle naked at May 10, 2010 10:28 PM

Yes, and it would be nice if you'd been helping build the net, or at least help build a net for others once you realize how nice it was that others built one for you.

Posted by: Texan99 at May 10, 2010 11:33 PM

This is sort of like when Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

Sort of; Harriet Miers had/has more experience/qualifications...

Posted by: camojack at May 11, 2010 01:21 AM

Harriet Miers had/has more experience/qualifications...

What? How *else* would you expect a Hahvuhd dean and Obie-confrere from Chicago Law to get some actual judicial experience or qualifications without occupying a bench on the Supreme Court?

O, ye of Unrealistic Expectations!

Posted by: BillT at May 11, 2010 03:22 AM

This is sort of like when Bush nominated Harriet Miers....Sort of; Harriet Miers had/has more experience/qualifications

*snort*

Camo, that's exactly what I thought :p

Posted by: Cassandra at May 11, 2010 03:51 AM

Same as you guys. Never served on the bench, but hey... she's got a good heart, right?

But to be honest, I hope they go ahead and confirm her. It's not like we're going to get anyone who's less of an ideologue.

Posted by: MikeD at May 11, 2010 09:33 AM

Kagen is clearly a stealth candidate. No previous judgeship, few publications, no written record to speak of. We're looking at someone who's going to be an extreme ideologue. The trouble with candidates like this is, once they are on the bench, you never know what kind of ideologue they are going to be.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at May 11, 2010 09:57 AM

Cousin Dave, I was thinking that too...Souter was sort of a stealth candidate; his opinion in Kelo vs. New London surprised me. He had experience too...of a sort. I have noticed, though, that Sotomayor has been a bit quiet. Maybe waiting for reinforcements?

Posted by: Cricket at May 11, 2010 11:16 AM

Given Ms. Kagen's public statement that First Amendment rights should yield to the need for social order and for not oppressing certain groups, I'd wager that there is less stealth than first thought. And she give two plagerizing professors a "bad prof, no, no" pass when Harvard students caught doing the same would have been flunked or expelled. The more I learn, the less I like, and I hope that the Senate does serious due-diligence on Ms. Kagen.

Posted by: LittleRed1 at May 11, 2010 02:27 PM

Her Master's thesis at least, is available for reading. And it reveals the socialist within.

Just saying.

Posted by: Cricket at May 11, 2010 03:34 PM

What? How *else* would you expect a Hahvuhd dean and Obie-confrere from Chicago Law to get some actual judicial experience or qualifications without occupying a bench on the Supreme Court?
O, ye of Unrealistic Expectations!
Posted by: BillT at May 11, 2010 03:22 AM

O.J.T. for the Supreme Court?! Yikes.

This is sort of like when Bush nominated Harriet Miers....Sort of; Harriet Miers had/has more experience/qualifications

*snort*
Camo, that's exactly what I thought :p
Posted by: Cassandra at May 11, 2010 03:51 AM

Yes, it's a very similar scenario; the current one is even worse than the previous, though...

Posted by: camojack at May 12, 2010 03:37 AM

Since y'all are comparing the Harriet Myers nomination with the Kagan nomination, perhaps y'all would find this instructive:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-11-2010/release-the-kagan

Posted by: I Call BS at May 12, 2010 10:55 AM

Ok, since you want to go there, do let's.

Ignoring the fact that you're taking your argument from a comedian, let's just go with it. Stewart uses the "the only difference between them is Ivy League" as meaning "the only difference is Myers was dumb." Well, let's examine. Since when does "Ivy League = smart". Because I recall that "Bush = dumb", even though he was Ivy League.

Next, he points out that it's the Right rushing to point out how what Obama is doing is like the things Bush did, and that it was ok when Bush did it. Funny, I recall the folks on the Right lambasting Bush for the Myers pick as well. In fact, we're pretty much in solid agreement (both at the time and now) that it was a ridiculous pick. So in fact, we're comparing misstep with misstep.

And finally, Stewart trots out the "and what's up with the Republicans passing off Bush's problems like they're Obamas'?" meme. Well, at what point does the economy finally become Obama's? At what point does the jobless rate become Obama's? How long does he get in office before he gets to take responsibility for the stuff that happens while he's in office? As I recall, with GWB, less than 9 months. Because he was blamed for 9/11 (even ignoring the Birthers) by the Left. You don't get to wait till it's fine before claiming it's now his.

Look, Stewart is an unserious person. He's not expected to be. But facts are facts, Kagan has NEVER BEEN A JUDGE. Do you seriously think anyone who has never been a judge is actually qualified to sit on the Supreme Court AS A JUDGE? Are you seriously defending that pick?

Posted by: MikeD at May 12, 2010 11:23 AM

His ideology calls and he must obey.

It can be no other way.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 12, 2010 11:33 AM

There have been several Justices of SCOTUS over the years who had never been judges, and they did respectable jobs in the position.

Mike D, you are condusing what you say Jon Stewart "is" (a comedian) with what he "says": a thing is no more and no less true depending on who says it, although over time some people develop reputations for not telling the truth, when things they have said are examined and found not to be true. I don't think that anything Jon Stewart said yesterday has been shown not to be true.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 12, 2010 07:32 PM

I don't mind the fact that she's never been a judge nearly as much as the fact that she's spent practically her entire career in academia. That's a horrible background, particular since HLS stopped being serious a while back and has sunk into a rigid, narrow, fashionable rut. But it's encouraging to hear that, as HLS deans go, she's less rigid than many.

Posted by: Texan99 at May 12, 2010 11:19 PM

She's a smart lady, and not an idealogue like some others - I read that some so-called "lib'rals" are opposed to her because she's too conservative for their tastes.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 11:47 AM

ideologue?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 11:48 AM

But the fact that, for a Harvard dean, she's not unusually silly or fanatical is not as terrific an endorsement as I'd like. That puts her in the same category as Islamic fundamentalists who wish they had the determination to serve as suicide bombers, but have just enough doubts to hold themselves back while tepidly supporting others.

Posted by: Texan99 at May 13, 2010 01:16 PM

Texan, they can make morale boosting phone calls to the Hasans instead. That should smooth their conscience.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:55 PM

and no NSA Wiretap.

NO NSA WIRETAP.

Watch as they do the victory dance over that success of theirs. That all encompassing, Leftist, design and mantra.

They succeeded in giving success to Islamofascists.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:56 PM

But the fact that, for a Harvard dean, she's not unusually silly or fanatical is not as terrific an endorsement as I'd like. That puts her in the same category as Islamic fundamentalists who wish they had the determination to serve as suicide bombers, but have just enough doubts to hold themselves back while tepidly supporting others. Posted by: Texan99 at May 13, 2010 01:16 PM

sarcasm on yea ... I'm sure she's a lot like an Islamic fundamentalist, ya know, bein' a woman 'n Jewish 'n a lawyer 'n all ... sarcasm off NOT

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 06:38 PM

Jews love Islam. At least, secular Jews do. They vote Democrat party, at least. That's almost the same anyways in the end.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 15, 2010 09:39 AM

I'm sure Americans would never love an enemy of America just because they are Americans. After all, they are Americans. The only ones that hate America are outside America.... not exactly.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 15, 2010 09:40 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)