Well yeah, ends justifies the means. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/caesarism-without-apology/?_r=0 Also, beyond an abandonment of constitutional separation of powers, it’s also an implicit abandonment of electoral democracy. And that’s the thing with liberals, you get the feeling they’d be much happier if they didn’t have to placate voters. Placating voters is why you get lies like ‘if you like your plan you can keep it…’
I like this as an article. http://theweek.com/articles/543507/how-rich-devoured-american-corporation–what-about Doesn’t mean I want punitive taxes to keep shareholders from getting their value and liquidity, but I like the article…
Yeah, stop that http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121264/tom-cotton-iran-letter-reckless-not-treason Too hyperbolic. I was all prepared yesterday to compare Tom Cotton’s treason to Jane Fonda’s. I don’t know (say ‘care’ maybe) if Jane Fonda was ‘treasonous’. But that was exponentially more treasonous than Tom Cotton’s public letter. Ya know what that was by Cotton? It was trolling. And it worked.
Republicans are kinda amused at the Hillary press conference yesterday. I’m moved to ponder… the rationale of Hillary is that the Dems need a candidate of this formidableness because the urgency to keep the white house is so great… And Hillary would cruise to an easy victory while no other Democrats have the stature and will lose. …. This is terrible wisdom and insight. Hillary is not formidable…. at all. There were 3 candidates for the Democrat nomination in ’08. Hillary, the world’s most flawed man John Edwards, and an earnest longshot Barack Obama. It’s fair to say Barack Obama and his organization was not then what it is now, being somewhat close to “barely credible” as a serious candidate rather than formidable. But Hillary got bettered by him. Because she’s not formidable.