The Week of Extreme Busyness continues (though the weekend has gotten slightly less busy), but here’s a semi-random LinkSwarm to end your work week with.
Thanks to ObamaCare’s electronic billing provisions, doctors “see fewer patients per shift than they did previously, and spend less time with each one.”
Grad student sues over university giving her a C+ in a class. Oh, and she also attend the university for free. Why not just hang a sign around your neck saying “No employer should ever hire me, I’m a lawsuit waiting to happen”?
George Will says that Dewhurst is good enough. I would take issue with one of Will’s assertions, though: If you read that letter signed by eighteen Texas state senators, it is not “in support of Dewhurst,” but rather a technical description of the various legislative fates of the various bills Cruz said Dewhurst either killed behind the scenes, or else didn’t push hard enough for. It’s not an endorsement of Dewhurst’s candidacy by those Senators. However, Dewhurst did just pick up the endorsement of…
State Senator Dan Patrick. Given the significant differences Dewhurst and Patrick have had over the years (most notably the fate of the anti-groping bill), that’s a good pickup for Dewhurst, though I don’t think it really moves the needle.
Many members of the legislative Tea Party Caucus are not pleased.
Dewhurst’s conservative credentials get examined by Rice professor Mark P. Jones, who concludes that “Dewhurst’s ideological location is somewhere in the moderate or centrist wings of the Republican Senate delegation,” while passing legislation acceptable to “most” Republicans.
Blogger Befuddled by the Clowns says that “Dewhurst because he clearly feels he will be able to swing in and buy the votes. In my mind, this represents the same old arrogance that has existed in Washington DC for decades. This prevailing attitude is the very essence that I want evaporated from our Federal Government…It is clear that David Dewhurst is out of touch with the real working class and will bring his elitist ideals with him. These are the reasons why I voted for Ted Cruz.”
State Senator Deb Fischer was sitting in third place in the race for Nebraska’s U.S. Senate seat. Then Sarah Palin endorsed her. Now? She just won the GOP nomination.
“Just four days before the start of early voting in the Texas Senate primary, the Ted Cruz campaign announced the endorsement of Governor Sarah Palin and her husband Todd Palin.”
In response to a letter from Ted Cruz, Governor Sarah Palin wrote: “We’re proud to join conservatives in Texas and throughout the nation in supporting your campaign to become the next Senator from the Lone Star State.”
“Your conservative principles, passionate defense of our Constitution and our free market system come at a time when these cornerstones of our freedom and prosperity are under attack,” Governor Palin added. “Our shared goal isn’t just to change the majority in control of the Senate, but to assure principled conservatives like you are there to fight for us.”
Palin is not only a superstar, she’s also a Tea Party kingmaker; numerous of the candidates she endorsed in 2010 won their primary and general election races over GOP establishment types, even when the challengers weren’t initially favored. Expect a lot of donors (both large and small) to look at contributing to Cruz, as well as a lot of on-the-fence Texas voters who hadn’t been paying attention to the race yet seriously considering Cruz. So this endorsement is just a wee bit more important than my own.
Well, thanks for that. Ideological clarity is always useful: Tim Pawlenty has political courage, Mitt Romney doesn’t. Good to know.
For as long as he’s been mentioned as a serious presidential candidate (say, about 2007), I’ve always harbored a vague dislike of Romney for reasons that were hard to articulate, and which had nothing to do with his Mormonism. Just looking at him made me think he was a smug, dishonest creep, no matter how much the good folks at National Review gushed over him. If you had asked me to explain why I disliked him I would have had to admit that it was an entirely irrational, gut-level reaction. (The vast majority of liberals have the same gut-level, irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, but they just won’t admit it’s irrational.)
But the more I hear from Romney, the more I think that my gut-level reaction was right, that Romney is an empty suit that doesn’t believe in anything except his own awesomeness. If Romney got elected, I bet within a year we’d be getting New York Times editorials praising him for how much he’s “grown” (i.e., abandoned conservative positions).
Romney was never going to be my choice for the GOP nod, but his latest pander has finally dropped him to dead last among the serious contenders in my book, even below New Gingrich, Ron Paul and Herman Cain. At least with Ron Paul, I have some idea of where he stands. Romney has the ideological consistency of store-brand guacamole.
Let me be blunt, liberal America: no one, outside your own fever swamps, trusts you to decide what discourse is “fair”, or where the “Climate of Hate” begins and ends. You don’t get to drop buckets of blood on Palin for days, then call her a hatemonger for responding. Your behavior over the last few days is a crime against discourse, and you did not get away with it.
Paul Krugman managed to bring up one example of conservative “eliminationist rhetoric”…and it was a lie.
In truth, I don’t cover Krugman a lot, because: A.) Plenty of others are covering that beat, and B.) Like much of the rest of The New York Times, I view Krugman’s blinkered liberalism as a major strategic advantage for conservatives. But John Steele Gordon is right: “He is the Joe McCarthy of our times.”
I was going to post another piece on the shooting, but Instapundit has already covered pretty much everything I wanted to say. (Shakes tiny fist in impotent rage. “Damn you, Glenn Harlan Reynolds! Damn you to Hell!”) By now the story is less about a crazy man killing political figures and innocent bystanders than it is the left’s desperate and distasteful attempts to pin the act on the Tea Party.
“There also was a second sickness on display, and it was the swiftness and the vigor with which the left-wing blogosphere and some more mainstream Democrats immediately sought to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing ‘vitriol’ in general for the shooting.”
Has any political movement ever been as obsessed with a political figure as the left is obsessed with Sarah Palin? Especially one that no longer holds any elected office?
Federal charges filed. I think we can all agree that, if Loughner is found fit to stand trial (I doubt he will be), then he should eligible for the death penalty, yes?
Since Loughner was obsessed with mind control, here are some of his fellow crazies discussing his obsession. However, just to be fair, I should make clear that I don’t blame the Nutso American Community for Loughner’s spree. The vast majority of people on Above Top Secret and InfoWars are honest, hardworking, non-violent Americans who just happen to be deluded cranks. Most of them wouldn’t harm a fly, unless it was aiming a tiny parabolic microphone at them. (You know the CIA has those now, don’t you? Don’t you??????)
I seem to have drifted off-track. There’s nothing funny about Loughner’s shooting spree, but I think we all need to take a step back and enjoy a little levity in the midst of grim times. And the David Ickes and Gene Rays of the world aren’t the ones we need to worry about.
Did accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner assassinate Judge Roll for political reasons?
Hell no. Loughner killed Roll and five other people because he was a violent, unstable lunatic, and more and more evidence is coming out to that effect. As Arizona Senator John Kyl put it: “It’s probably giving him too much credit to ascribe a coherent political philosophy to him.”
Sometimes people do commit horrific acts of violence for easily-identifiable ideological reasons. Maj. Nidal Hasan’s Ft. Hood shooting spree is a classic example. Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree is not.
The evidence is now in, and what little seems to be known about accused Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner from people that knew him was that “he was leftwing” and “liberal in wanting to change the way the world was run, we both wanted to. He took it to an extreme I never would’ve.”
Does that mean that Arizona Democratic Congressman Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a “left wing extremist?” No. When you read his manifesto, you see that his political leanings, such as they are, were not “left” or “right” so much as “completely farking loony toons batshit insane.” His manifestos jump from subject to subject more quickly than a jittering tweaker flips channels on a TV remote. To paraphrase an entry in the Bulwer-Lytton contest, ideas seem to tumble around randomly in his head, making and breaking connections like a load of laundry in a dryer without Cling Free. They have some of the same quality of argument as Time Cube Guy: It’s less that his manifesto is wrong than that you can’t actually understand what he’s trying to say.
(Boing Boing has even more of his manifestos up, and the Time Cube Guy vibe only gets stronger. Except for the fact that Gene Ray never killed anyone…)
Loughner’s liberalism didn’t make him crazy, his crazy made him crazy.
I mean, how crazy do you have to be to expelled from a pre-algebra class? “Solve for X.” “Admit it! X is a total lie!!!! There is no X, only Zuul!”
Every time anyone even remotely connected to conservative causes commits a violent act, the nutroots and their media enablers are quick to label them a “right wing extremist,” but anyone with demonstrable left wing sympathies is a “lone nut.” (Indeed, they’re pretty blatant about it.) Indeed, one of the most famous assassins in American history was a known communist sympathizer who defected to the Soviet Union, but you never hear Lee Harvey Oswald described by the media as a “left-wing extremist.”