Even The FISH Dislike S. E. Cupp

AND I'M A FISH PERSON. I hope that in their fishing forays the Cupps toss back into the waters the fish they don't intend to eat. That's what liberals do. (I'm thinking S. E. probably cuts them to pieces with a machete in some ceremonial blood ritual, as wingnuts are wont to do in their inner councils.) I'm reminded of the Daily Caller chick who crashed Chris's book party and tried using her female wiles to video-catch an inebriated Ben Bradlee in a compromising position. While misguided, wingnut women are much more interesting than their pasty white male counterparts who wage a war on women — especially those who do not know "their place"— to mask their own, um, inadequacies. Wingnut women exist in an über-hostile work environment, where coping with lechery is par for the course.

 

How can anyone really dislike such a cute wingnut as S. E. Cupp? To her great credit, this self-described "social conservative" [who is also] "an atheist" (oy vey!) endures the sharp poisoned barbs of liberal heavyweights with grace and humor. She even awakened Ari Melber from his Ratigan-induced stupor to show his true liberal colors by deconstructing her absurd laissez-faire Randian posture concerning subsidies to economic sectors/companies that are strategic assets of our global competitiveness. (Now that Ari's Svengali is back, only time will tell whether his progressive self slinks back in the shell.) Alex and Sam Stein, even Maggie Haberman, took turns scolding her. S. E. gives me the sense she's a progressive struggling to break free of her weird ideology. I hope she does. Big Eddie should have her on to talk ... fishing.

Idiot Punditocracy Watch: Maggie Haberman To The Corner

I LIKE MAGGIE Haberman. She has that stern, stentorian on-air persona that would strike fear and trembling in the hearts of subordinates were she lecturing them on substandard performance in a corporate boardroom setting. When Maggie drops her important Beltway Media denizen guard, she can flash a winning smile and give us a glimpse of a fun person outside the POLITICO-John Harris orbit. But such is the gravitational pull of the Beltway Media/Idiot Punditocracy that Maggie seems obliged to toe the Pravdaesque party line narrative (see Major Garrett, deligitimized puppet of the Beltway Media). First, quotable Pravda on Mittens:

Mitt Romney: Out-of-Touch,Out-of-Date, Unelectable (March 28, 2012):

"Electing Mitt Romney as the next president of the United States of America would be like appointing a serial pedophile as a kindergarten teacher, a rapist as a janitor at a girl’s dormitory, or a psychopath with a fixation on knives as a kitchen hand. His comments on Russia are a puerile attempt at making the grand stage and boy, did he blow it."

Timothy Babcroft-Hinchey, @Pravda.ru

Maggie: “I think that’s a tad bit of hyperbolae — The Democrats in this country are seizing on what Romney said about “geopolitical foe” and “greatest” as a huge gaffe. Republicans are arguing otherwise, that there are all sorts of reasons why this remains of great concern. I think that for Romney's campaign this is an attempt to try to pivot toward substance, an attempt to pivot out of the smallness of this primary.”

Alex was incredulous: “Do you think so, really?! In terms of substance, antagonizing Russia in such strident terms after what he said about China …”

Maggie, defensively: “It’s saber-rattling, I’m not saying there’s depth behind what he’s saying, but I think they’re trying to speak on a grander scale.” Ari Melber and Sam Stein blow Maggie’s argument out of the park. Watch:

Uh, Maggie … If you’d like your candidate to speak on a “grander scale” he should first make a grand, cogent, informed argument; not, as you reluctantly concede, “saber rattling, I’m not saying there’s depth behind what he’s saying, but [he's] trying to speak on a grander scale.” Right. Instead, we get ancient Cold War rhetoric, i.e., dangerous, strident hyperbole from the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. Oh, if only there were depth behind what Mitt Romney is saying, that is the question. Right, Maggie? So, without further ado, Maggie Haberman please:

Hanging By A Surgical Thread: NYT Weighs In With Editorial CPR

THAT DOES IT. For those who believe a Times Editorial endorsement is like the kiss of death. But they couldn't very well come out in favor of the Court ruling 'Obamacare' unconstitutional, could they? The Times Editorial makes a point I haven't heard enough of, other than perhaps from Rachel: When will the extremist, activist right wing majority on this Supreme Court ever respect precedent and the limits of its authority to tip the scales of injustice toward consolidation of a ruling corporate oligarchy? The answer: NEVER. Not until one or more of the extremists retires, voluntarily or not, and a re-elected President Obama gets to appoint a justice or two who reflect the centrist-progressive will of the people. The alternative, too horrible to contemplate, is a court which mimics the kangaroo courts of fascist authoritarian regimes of 1930s Europe, codifying injustice, rubber stamping the ruling powers, and rewriting the law in its own image, not the Constitution's, for generations to come.

The Supreme Court’s Momentous Test

In ruling on the constitutionality of requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance, the Supreme Court faces a central test: whether it will recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress.

The skepticism in the questions from the conservative justices suggests that they have adopted the language and approach of the insurance mandate’s challengers. But the arguments against the mandate, the core of the health care reform law, willfully reject both the reality of the national health care market and established constitutional principles that have been upheld for generations.

The Obama administration persuasively argues that the mandate is central to solving the crisis in America’s health care system, which leaves 50 million people uninsured and accounts for 17.6 percent of the national economy. The challengers contend that the law is an unlimited — and, therefore, unconstitutional — use of federal authority to force individuals to buy insurance, or pay a penalty.

That view wrongly frames the mechanism created by this law. The insurance mandate is nothing like requiring people to buy broccoli — a comparison Justice Antonin Scalia suggested in his exasperated questioning of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. Congress has no interest in requiring broccoli purchases because the failure to buy broccoli does not push that cost onto others in the system.

Congress has indisputable authority to regulate national markets and provide for the general welfare through its broad power to tax. Nothing about the mandate falls outside those clearly delineated powers.

In fact, Justice Scalia has, in the recent past, declared Congress’s broad authority under the commerce clause to regulate activities with far less direct economic impact. In a 2005 case upholding a federal law prohibiting the growing of medical marijuana for personal use, he wrote that Congress may regulate even intrastate activities “that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”

The skepticism of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. was also troubling because it seemed to accept an odd distinction of timing made by the opponents of the law.

Those critics concede that the mandate would be constitutional if it went into effect at the moment an individual actually needed health care. In other words, Congress could require the sick and dying to pay for insurance or for medical services when they show up in the emergency room, but it cannot require precoverage of medical costs through insurance.

The court has no authority under the Constitution to judge the merits or effectiveness of the health care law. That is Congress’s job.

Yet, as Justice Stephen Breyer remarked about the points made by a lawyer for the opponents: “All that sounds like you’re debating the merits of the bill.” To counter the challengers’ claims of alarm over a novel policy, he offered several examples in American history where the court has strongly backed new solutions to major problems, like the creation of a national bank in the early 19th century.

If the Supreme Court hews to established law, the only question it must answer in this case is modest: Did Congress have a rational basis for concluding that the economic effects of a broken health care system warranted a national solution? The answer is incontrovertibly yes.

THE MORONS: LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON ...

As I Was Saying: Mittens Takes The Bait ...

PROVES HIMSELF TO BE A TOTAL MORMON on foreign policy:

Following President Obama's FOE (sic) "gaffe" IDIOT MITTENS came out swinging ... at himself:

“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world’s worst actors.” Oh, really? Did they attack the U.S. on 9/11? Does Mittens know that in 1994 Presidents Clinton of the U.S. and Yeltsin of Russia negotiated a treaty between their countries not to target their strategic missiles at each other, and that the old Soviet Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev is gone? Current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev rebuked Romney for his antiquated saber-rattling:

 “Regarding ideological clichés, this ‘number one foe’ type of phrase smacks of Hollywood and certain times (of the past). I would advise all pretenders to the U.S. presidency…to use their heads. This is not a bad thing for a presidential candidate. Also, (one needs to) look at his watch: we are in 2012 and not the mid-1970s.” But this wasn't the only rebuke Mittens got. House Speaker John Boehner — Romney's party leader! — (surprisingly) rapped the mittened knuckles. Watch:

Meanwhile, the President schooled the IDIOTS in the media on his non-gaffe: “The only way I get this stuff done is If I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support and frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a nuclear security summit here. “This is not a matter of hiding the ball.”

Chris Matthews joined in the chorus of grown-ups scolding the MORON who would become the latest retrograde Republican presidential nominee:

Lawrence's Righteous Indignation

TREYVON MARTIN killer's attorney ran away from a scheduled interview with Lawrence. BIG MISTAKE. Watch the inimitable Lawrence demolish the empty chair that would have been occupied by George Zimmerman's lawyer:

Was President Obama's Open Mic 'Gaffe' Really A Gaffe?

Beltway Media luminary Jonathan Capehart gravely intoned that President Obama ought to know by now that "every moment is an open mic moment." I'll say. Watch the President's body language. Does this look like a leader who is having a private 'moment' with a counterpart? Or rather, one who is well aware that the cameras and mic are trained on them, and in case someone doesn't catch on that a little Beltway news is being generated, there's the familiar fist churning gesture of the President's and what I thought was a nice touch/counter-touch: a lingering hand on Russian President Medvedev's arm and Dmitry's hand over the President's, signaling friendly assent and understanding. Watch:

Gaffe?! Really ... CHECK! I love it when the President plays his political opposition and the MSM/Idiot Punditocracy/Beltway Media like a Stradivarius violin. Let's go over this thing objectively. What do the media IDIOTS, Obama haters, and wingnut political opposition think the President says to his counterparts privately?! ("NO, THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR AND THEREFORE I SHALL HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY FLEXIBILITY TO, e.g., NEGOTIATE TREATIES AND GET THEM PASSED BY A CONGRESS THAT IS ALSO UP FOR ELECTION!") RIIII-IIGHT.

How about this: The Republican candidates have already been publicly SCOLDED by this President for their jingoistic "talk of war," reminding them not so subtly that, in his position as Commander-in-Chief, he has a SOLEMN responsibility to protect the American people and to seek negotiated, peaceful solutions to thorny foreign policy issues before they escalate into crisis and war. The old adage that "all politics stops at the water's edge" no longer applies with this new breed of treasonous Republicans, who have done everything in their power, from day one, to oppose this President on everything, from the economy to foreign policy — to the ultimate detriment of We, the American People. Wouldn't President Obama just looove to remind us of Republican anti-American intransigence.

And what about this: What kind of profile in courage and presidential leadership is Willard Mitt Romney, when he AVOIDS LIKE THE PLAGUE taking a stand on the health care debate before the Supreme Court, and how it relates to Romneycare, nor will he take a foreign policy position on whether or not we should remain in Afghanistan, per the President's mandate and timetable? Want to talk about "FLEXIBILITY" on foreign policy during an election year, wingnuts? REALLY?! BRING IT ON, IMBECILES.

What surprised me: President Medvedev's excellent English. These guys — Medvedev and Putin — would do wonders for Russian-American relations if they shared some of their multilingualism on official foreign visits, instead of always playing to their respective domestic political bases with clunky translated statements. Actually, it's nice to know that the leaders communicate much more clearly and concisely in private than those awkward joint public appearances where important language and nuance can truly be lost in translation.

Psycho Ricky Goes Psycho: 'C'mon Man, What Are You Doing?!'

Despite the snarky back-to-back carping from the fake "journalists"— Katzenjammer Kids Heilemann and Halperin — on the fake progressive channel against the real journalist, New York Times' Jeff Zeleny, this actually is what real journalists do: Expose the candidates' lies without resort to backroom whispers, outrageous 'appropriation' — the anti-journalists' euphemism for plagiarism — and fictional "thoughts" politicians may have had. Observe and learn how an ethical reporter elicits a [bleeped] comment, not a fictitious "thought" bubble from a politician:

PS - The CBS video clip omitted the full context of Santorum's comment, which was Obamacare. So, Santorum was correct to point out Zeleny should have quoted him in context — and left it at that, e.g., 'if you go back to my remarks, from the beginning, you'll see I specifically cited Romneycare.' Zeleny did what every good reporter does: elicit a (over)reaction from a candidate by quoting the prominent/headline portion of what he said. Santorum had the opportunity to provide the context, without losing his cool. Perfectly fine, since it wasn't one of those edited videos (CBS) to which the candidate could not respond in real time.

November Surprise For The Wingnuts?

A poll of former Supreme Court clerks of current justices and lawyers who have argued cases before the Court, shows only 35% believe the Court will find the individual mandate unconstitutional, and only 19% say it will find the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional. That said, who really knows how the right wing extremist justices will rule, except for one thing: They're so worshipful of the doctrine corporations are people, that any Commerce Clause ruling which could undermine all those mega-multimillion corporate "people" — insurance and drug companies — would be anathema to these robed overlords. Screwing over real flesh and blood people, as in the Citizens United ruling, hey we're all fair game. The "conservative" posture is to not shake up 17% of the economy by messing with a law that is already being implemented, much less cramping the business expansion of their beloved corporate "citizens."

Here's the spin:

"[T]he percentages still reflect what has been the conventional wisdom among those in the legal community heading into this week's oral arguments. As it stands now, the bet is that the court will ultimately rule the Affordable Care Act constitutional. The reasoning for this usually falls into one of three categories: that the small sliver of legal precedent suggests the law will be upheld, that the court would respect congressional action as a default position, or that individual justices are invested in establishing their bipartisan credentials this go-around.