This could be the Supreme Court term, one court watcher joked recently, that Justice John Paul Stevens remembers he is a Republican.
It’s interesting speculation, given that most of what’s predicted about Stevens these days centers on when he will step down and which president will get to replace him with hiw (or her) nominee.
It’s a surprise for a lot of people to even recall that Stevens was appointed by a Republican.
A 1975 appointee of President Gerald Ford, Stevens is regarded as the anchor of the court’s liberal wing. But he has joined with his more conservative colleagues in three high-profile cases that defied predictions they would showcase deep ideological divisions on the court.
This year’s presidential election has broken molds and busted myths about politics as the candidates find their way forward in new ways. Republicans the party of ’fat cats’ and Democrats of ‘the little guy’?
The gravamen is that Democratic presidential candidates in the current election have exhibited a whopping advantage among all kinds of elite groups, identified by professional, financial, or educational status. Meanwhile, Republicans garnered more support from plumbers, truckers, and janitors.
What a switch, if conventional wisdom prevailed. But there’s little to no conventional wisdom left in this campaign year. So follow the trending data. Which the National Review article Kevin Schmiesing is analyzing here does, but doesn’t explain that well.
The big question if Clinton stays in the race is this: Just how will she campaign? Yesterday, there were no negative TV ads or attack mailers. But Clinton did stress that she can win the general, implying that Obama might not be able to.
Now this is interesting:
It’s comments like that one that might drive more supers toward Obama pretty quickly. Why? Because they know the math, but they don’t want her to spend three weeks making a case that Obama can’t win. It will only weaken him. Here’s what Obama backer Chris Dodd said yesterday, per NBC’s Ken Strickland. “You’re going to be asking a bunch of people [in West Virginia] to vote against somebody…
click here to read whole article and make comments
So Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split the two state primaries Tuesday. Sort of.
Obama was expected to win North Carolina, but won much bigger than expected. Clinton was expected to win Indiana, but eked out a very narrow victory. By early evening as the results were coming in, some commentators and Democratic leaders among them, were saying it’s time for Clinton to drop out of the race. She is not. But Tuesday’s primary results finally gave the evening a new, pivotal feel. After all this time, it seems like the race has turned the corner and may be coming down the stretch.
There is considerable discussion about what would happen the Florida and Michigan primary results could be counted; there is the debate about whether Obama is electable, and there is an extended conversation about one paragraph in [a] story, which said, “A Clinton adviser said the…
click here to read whole article and make comments
And more than people generally think, it’s about the judges. John McCain is focusing squarely on the importance of judges.
Here are two takes on his speech today. This from the AP.
Republican John McCain criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice, reaching out to the Christian right on one of their chief concerns: the proper role of judges in government.
Conservatives contend that federal judges have upset the constitutional balance of power among the courts, the Congress and the presidency by making far-reaching decisions, such as one in 2005 that let cities seize people’s homes to make way for shopping malls.
“My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power,” McCain said Tuesday in a speech at Wake Forest University.
What a candidate’s spouse says in a campaign is an insight into what may be the view from the White House in the near future.
Michelle Obama has given another revealing talk that reflects her view of America. It is not inspiring.
By her husband’s logic, Michelle Obama must be a heavily armed xenophobic religious zealot, because boy is she bitter. This C-SPAN video of a speech delivered by Mrs. Obama in North Carolina last Friday is characteristic of her peculiar recent performances on the stump. It is an hour-long talk to supporters who just want something to cheer about, and who get some opportunities at the outset, but then find themselves treated to a profoundly and relentlessly negative vision of American life.
There’s a lot in these talks about victimhood. And oppression.
Without ideas and principles and policies clearly presented to the American people, ideas that provide the ballast to keep their boat sailing, even a most attractive and popular candidate will start to sink at some point. Especially if their popularity was based on images and ideals.
Peter Wehner likens Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama to make the point.
Obama, as much as any national politician I can recall, has made his presidential candidacy personality-based. Its success depends on the public’s sense of who he is — and that puts added importance on the public having confidence in Obama’s character and values, his judgment and his integrity. Many of us were attracted to Obama precisely because of how he came across: reasonable, thoughtful, measured, a person who was attempting to transcend racial divisions. We found his liberalism troubling — but we found him to be personally impressive.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Sen. Obama has come pretty close, but now the sleight is getting out of hand.
Mark Steyn says the “rhetorical magic” isn’t working so well anymore.
Oddly enough, the shrewdest appraisal of the Senator’s speechifying “magic” came from Jeremiah Wright himself. “He’s a politician,” said the Reverend. “He says what he has to say as a politician… He does what politicians do.”
The notion that the Amazing Obama might be just another politician doing what politicians do seems to have affronted the senator more than any of the stuff about America being no different from al-Qaeda and the government inventing AIDs to kill black people.
The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis of liberal bloggers.
And liberal bloggers have had Democratic politicians in a choke hold.
The détente with Fox has provoked a backlash from progressive bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes.
What’s this? No talking to anyone outside the ranks?
That was then. This is now…at least for the candidates.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Spotted him in the photo right away when scanning the news and stopping by Townhall.
The story there was about an ad campaign Sen. John McCain’s liberal Democratic opponents are running that makes political hay, and a falsehood, of a statement he made. A now notorious statement because of its frequent misuse as a bludgeon.
The ads, run by the Democratic National Committee and the liberal group MoveOn.org., tie McCain to President Bush and cite McCain’s comments that there could be an American military presence in Iraq for 100 years.
“One hundred years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush,” an announcer says in the most recent ad, run by MoveOn.org.
Sheila Reports promises a perspective here that you may not be getting in mainstream media and the politically charged blogosphere. Don’t expect political correctness, because politics doesn’t determine what’s correct. This space is grounded in the natural law and moral order. And it expects civility, goodwill and an openness to truth and reason.