Obama, every day, shows the nation and the world he is merely a schoolyard bully. No disrespect intended towards schoolyard bullies.

He is a cowardly bully. Actually, I'd say a weaselly, cowardly bully. He is like the little smart ass that hides behind others and throws out idiotic comments when he "knows" he is safe from reprisal. He could no more argue The Constitution with the likes of Alito than he could fly with his "Dumbo" ears. If his transcripts are ever released we will probably find he was an average or below student. Like I have said before, if he is allowed to replace any of the "originalist", conservative, justices on the SCOTUS it will be game over for the next thirty years at the very least.

Well, we wouldnt want the evil corporations to influence elections would we?

I mean, what would that leave for the unions to do?

"Like the little smart ass who hides behind others" who walks into a room with 140 opponents and schools them all? LOL.

Every Republican in Baltimore who confronted Obama started out smirking and spewing prepared talking points. Every one ended up red-faced and muttering, staring at their own shoes, embarrased, and rightly so.

If anyone here can picture GWB or Palin being confronted by 140 snarling Democrats, on camera, and coming out smelling like a rose, as Obama did yesterday, let me know.

"O" came out smelling but, it wasn't like a rose.

Glenn Greenwald draws attention to a comment to his article:

by"casual observer"_____

"Article II, Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."_______________

"First, it's not only allowed that the president would give his views on the 3rd branch's ruling, it is a constitutional requirement, if he feels it needs consideration by Congress.

"Second, Obama is absolutely correct that, regardless of how you stand on the court's ruling, it is an important ruling and unarguably merits consideration by congress."

Back during 2004-2006 with all the Bush bashing I occasionally thought that maybe they should let the dems have both houses and the Presidency just so the country could see how bad their policies were.

Little did I know.

Obama is no leader. He is an impetulant child throwing a temper tantrum. He is like the guy who beats his wife all the while telling her "see what you made me do".

Shorter Bruce Henry: "Hey, look over there!"

Note how he has NOTHING to say about how the world's smartest man, Ivy Leaguer and former Constitutional Law professor, apparently doesn't know or care about how the Constitution works. Nor how the Obama who showed up in Baltimore looked nothing like the Obama who's been campaigning against the Republicans since time immemorial.

One wonders how Teh Won would have handled a Republican who followed Obama's advice and "got in his face" and "hit back twice as hard" on Friday, asking him if his crackdown on tax cheats would involve his Cabinet, if his decrying of lobbyists' influence applied to all those he's hired to work in his administration, or asked him to elaborate on his disagreement with Citizens United v. FEC on the points cited above.

Too bad the Republicans were too wimpy polite and respectful to do that...

J.

If Obama is such a winner as a communicator then why after a year on non stop Obama on the TV giving speeches is his agenda polling in the 30's ?

If he "won" yesterday what did he do for the last year ? Lose ?

The only way to win the debate with the electorate is to DO or propose something that will work. Obviously Americans don't like what Obama says he wants to do.

Since the camera was on Obama nearly the entire time when did you see people " staring at their own shoes, embarrased" ?

At least he didn't have his chin turned up like at the SOTU.

He rallied his base for sure. And lost even more independents.

The facade is cracking on this long con job and no amount of words will fix it. Its time for deeds.

Does Obama strike anyone as a doer ?

"Too bad the Republicans were too wimpy polite and respectful to do that..."

Yep, didn't have the balls to call him out on his lying, his broken promises, his 'bipartisanship'. When handed their proposals for health care reform, he merely turned it aside with 'these won't work'. No explanation of WHY. SOMEONE should have stood up and demanded that he explain right then and there WHY their proposals would not work.

I'd have like to have seen Barry explain why tort reform would not have an impact on medical delivery costs. Why an increase in competition across state lines by insurers would not decrease costs.

The Republicans have to get over the "Presidential Bully Pulpit" fear and call the bastard out. At the very least, let people see him weasel his way out of responding.

Exit question: What's the shelf life of "It's all Bush's fault"? Are we going to hear the same thing again next year?

bryanDolt wrote:

"Second, Obama is absolutely correct that, regardless of how you stand on the court's ruling, it is an important ruling and unarguably merits consideration by congress."

What consideration? Obama told Congress to "pass a bill" to "right this wrong." Obama thinks the Citizen United case is a "wrong." Greenwald, and, apparently, bryanDolt, believe that Congress can "pass a bill" to undo a SCOTUS opinion. As Jay points out, an eighth grader taking Civics knows that this is wrong.

The stupidity of bryanDolt and Greenwald is one thing, but the stupidity of the President is something far more troubling. The only thing that could possibly make sense is that Obama was advocating Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment (which would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states) to eliminate the First Amendment. Is that the "consideration" that Obama was talking about?

"Every Republican in Baltimore who confronted Obama started out smirking and spewing prepared talking points. Every one ended up red-faced and muttering, staring at their own shoes, embarrased, and rightly so."
-- Posted by Bruce Henry

Hoo-boy! Obama kicked ass and took names at Baltimore.
I credit that event with paralyzing Wizbang yesterday, too.
:-)

BryanD...the congress can consider it till the end of time...but that can't do anything about it. It is a done deal.

Well, Mr Tea, Obama DID address in Baltimore the "lobbyist influence on his administration" issue. Guess you missed it.

As to your Constitutional red herring, Obama asked Congress to act to limit corporate and foreign influence on our elections, not to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. The analogy would be Roe v. Wade, which has been the law for almost 40 years now. But that doesn't stop pro-life folks from proposing legislation to limit or restrict its effect, now, does it?

Forgive me for not addressing these points directly above. I was really reacting to comment # 2 more than the piece itself. No lookoverthere intended.

"Hoo-boy! Obama kicked ass and took names at Baltimore. I credit that event with paralyzing Wizbang yesterday, too."

Yeah....and since you're passing out credit, it also kicked the stock market in the balls as well. Way to go, Barry!

Oh, and last night the moon came closest to earth than it has in years! Man, The One is all powerful!

"Greenwald, and, apparently, bryanDolt, believe that Congress can "pass a bill" to undo a SCOTUS opinion."--iwogisdead

Congress can ameliorate the effects of a Supreme Court decision by legislating around it, subject to the Court again afterward.

"Obama asked Congress to act to limit corporate and foreign influence on our elections"

There is current law that addresses the issue of 'foreign influence'. Barry should be aware of them, since his campaign went out of it's way to violate it.

He is a cowardly bully. Actually, I'd say a weaselly, cowardly bully. He is like the little smart ass that hides behind others and throws out idiotic comments when he "knows" he is safe from reprisal.

recovered liberal democrat,

It took a lot of balls for Obama to field questions from the republican leadership on national TV. There were no teleprompters either. The word coward does not apply to Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/29/obama.gop/index.html?hpt=C2

"The word coward does not apply to Obama."

How about LIAR?

I thought the Democratic message now was supposed to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Why can't Obama stay on message? If I don't stay on message I get a text from he who shall not be named, usually some threat about telling everyone about my Mother. How does banning foreign companies from buying ads on TV create or save any jobs? What the hell is he talking about? Somebody important should shut this guy up if he doesn't know what he's talking about. Isn't there anybody who can get Obama back on message?

Sorry to be so negative today.

Peace.

"Congress can ameliorate the effects of a Supreme Court decision by legislating around it, subject to the Court again afterward. "

Yes they can waste their time doing that...but since there is a precedent...the Supremes will just knock it down.

But they won't cause this year is an election year and they will be loathed to do anything and next year the Dimo's will barely have a majority in the Senaste and there will be a Rep congress...so again Obama is wasting words on something that is not going to happen.

The liberals are just being typical liberals.

Whenever one of theirs-whether it's the President, or one of their pundits scolds, talks over, yells or screams at a conservative in a public setting they consider it being owned, winning, a smack down, etc.

You see, it's the words that are most important, not the actions.

Others see it as bullying and intolerance of others opinions and disrespectful.

The sounds you didn't hear (not yet) is independents and conservative Democrats silently turning away from President Obama because of his policies and the way he chooses to get things done-bribing, scolding, being condescending, lying, shutting out all other opinions and proposals while saying that he has tried bipartisanship and others offer no alternatives, constantly saying one thing and doing another, etc.

Liberals think people are "too dumb to vote for their own self interests" and are "sheeple". That's why they are sure they just haven't explained it well enough, and if they'd do so voters would flock to them.

Instead though there are many voters that are smart and see what the liberals are doing.

I have a different theory, Michael as to why Congress will be loath (not "loathed") to do anything: because this ruling is a GOLDMINE for campaign contributions.

Look for incumbents to be even more difficult to dislodge. Thanks, Supremes! They haven't been this wrongheaded since Dred Scott or maybe Plessy v. Ferguson.

And the silence from conservatives about "judicial activism" is deafening.

It is your opinion that they are being wrongheaded...maybe your opinion is wrongheaded. If a ruling pisses off libs then I am all for it.

Right, Michael.

Country First, after all.

Much ink has been spilt over Alito's reaction to the president's words. I am more fascinated by the reaction of Ginsburg. Her head snaps back and then she is blinking like she had been slapped

Bruce Henry wrote:

. . . this ruling is a GOLDMINE for campaign contributions.

No it's not. The opinion has nothing to do with campaign contributions. The opinion was limited to invaliding the provision of the statute which prohibited corporate funding of independent political broadcasts.

It is a Free Speech issue only. All other portions of the statute remain intact.

Don't let the facts get in the way of Bruce or Steve's arguments, Iwogisdead.

"Look for incumbents to be even more difficult to dislodge."

Gerrymandering has more to do with the inability to unseating incumbents. Districts are drawn by politicians in order to maintain party advantage. Money is a factor, but not the biggest one.

"They haven't been this wrongheaded since Dred Scott or maybe Plessy v. Ferguson."

Some might even say Roe v Wade, or more recently the Kelo decision.

Personally, as an independent, I laugh my ass off when I hear someone say "The Supreme Court Has Spoken" when a decision comes down that they favor. When the decision runs contrary....then all we hear is whining.

Technically you're right, Mr dead, but, if I was a Congressman, and a corporation (or union) funded a hitpiece on my opponent, I would consider it a contribution in kind. Wouldn't you? Maybe I wouldn't call it that publicly, but I would know that's what it was, wouldn't you?

And I would be ever so grateful. Wouldn't you? Perhaps to the point of wanting to do favors for that corporation or union. You?

Technically you're right, Mr dead, but, if I was a Congressman, and a corporation (or union) funded a hitpiece on my opponent, I would consider it a contribution in kind. Wouldn't you? Maybe I wouldn't call it that publicly, but I would know that's what it was, wouldn't you?

And I would be ever so grateful. Wouldn't you? Perhaps to the point of wanting to do favors for that corporation or union. You?

You mean this wasn't happening already? /sarc

Bruce, the answer to all those questions is yes. But these are policy issues. Since Obama brought up a "century of law," the fact is that corporations have been recognized as persons under the Constitution for over 100 years, and the SCOTUS recogized that corporations have the First Amendment Right to Free Speech nearly 35 years ago. The statute violated the Constitution and was struck down because the Constitution is the highest authority. If the decision had gone the other way, then I could agree with Obama that it overturned a "century of law." But, it didn't and Obama was flat-out wrong.

The SCOTUS is not there to make policy decisions, despite what Sotomayor believes.

"Don't let the facts get in the way of Bruce or Steve's arguments,.."

Eh.
At least BH shows some arguments.
The other troll's behavior is deliberately insulting. I don't know why everyone wastes so much time on it.

And I would be ever so grateful. Wouldn't you? Perhaps to the point of wanting to do favors for that corporation or union. You?

Such as, say, the SEIU, which spent millions and millions getting Obama elected, and whose president pretty much as a standing invite to the Oval Office?

Nah, couldn't mean THAT. That would mean that Obama was bought and paid for by the unions...

J.

Would that be the same SEIU that funneled MILLIONS to a 'patriotic "non-partisan" organization' that continually puts out ads favorable to Barry?

"The word coward does not apply to Obama."

Ha ha ha ha...It certainly does, as do many other colorful terms I have'nt the time to waste posting.

Campaign contributions in this country = legalized bribery.

Putting legalized bribery on steroids is apparently OK with you, Mr Tea. Not with me. Sorry.

But putting all that aside, perhaps you'd like to address my point? You know, the one regarding the Roe v. Wade analogy? You've posted two pieces here claiming Obama is either a fool or a liar because he asked Congress to address the issue raised by the SCOTUS' decision. But it's done all the time, and has been throughout history. Everybody, including Obama, knows that Congress can't overturn such a decision w/out a Constitutional amendment. But there are ways to ameliorate or lessen the effects through legislation.

And you know that, you're just counting on your audience not to.

Technically, Mr Bruce, you are still wrong. And your audience knows it.

Unfortunately, republicans were PERFECTLY capable of "hitting back" yesterday, but chose to not do so. Apparently it is STILL the party of limp wristed, "bipartisan" hacks and spineless sell outs of the American people.

the fact is that corporations have been recognized as persons under the Constitution for over 100 years

Theres a false claim going around that supreme court justices extended the rights of a person to corporations over 100 years ago.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

There is no mention of extending the rights of people to corporations in the justices decision. Rather it was a court reporter who added the language in a headnote. Nothing contained in a headnote is legally binding, it can not be used in court for establishing precedent.

The court reporter was Bancroft Davis, he was also the former president of Newburgh and New York Railway Company.

Well, the "ameliorate or lessen the effects through legislation" seems to be the left's meme today, but we know that's a dodge and that's not what Obama meant.

1. Obama said he wanted the Congress to pass a bill which would "right this wrong." That's not talking about ameliorating or lessening anything. That's talking about legislation to reverse the Citizens United opinion.

2. The Citizens United case reiterated that corporations had First Amendment rights and invalidated a provision of McCain-Feingold that prohibited corporations from political broadcasts in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Now, how the hell is some legislation going to "ameliorate or lessen" the effects of that? Change the 30 to 15 and the 60 to 30 and see if the Supremes would go for that?

3. Five seconds before asking Congress to "right this wrong," Obama said that the Supreme Court had "reversed a century of law" and had opened the "floodgates for . . . foreign corporations . . . to spend without limit in our elections." Two blatant and amazing falsehoods from our Constitutional scholar. Given this sort of stupidity, it's hard to believe that Obama had any thoughts as subtle as amelioration on his mind when he asked for a bill to "right this wrong."

In any event, Obama's behavior toward the Supreme Court was atrocious and should offend every American. I wonder if the SCOTUS will come to any more of Obama's SOTU diatribes, or if it will boycott them in the future, just like it did after it disbarred Bill Clinton for his perjury.

Tina S wrote:

Theres a false claim going around that supreme court justices extended the rights of a person to corporations over 100 years ago.

The only problem, Tina, is that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Here's a quote from the case of First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1977) @ 780:

It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); see Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).

Nice try, though.

Tina S wrote:
"There is no mention of extending the rights of people to corporations in the justices decision. Rather it was a court reporter who added the language in a headnote. Nothing contained in a headnote is legally binding, it can not be used in court for establishing precedent."

Sophistry.

"...For example, in 1832, President
Andrew Jackson refused to extend the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and the State
of Pennsylvania revoked 10 banks' charters...

"...As industrialization began reshaping America, great fortunes began accumulating in the hands of canal owners and financiers and later railroad and steel magnates. And as great fortunes accumulated, a new wealthy class began influencing policymaking, changing the rules governing the corporations
they owned. Charters grew longer and less restrictive. The doctrine of limited liability - allowing
corporate owners and managers to avoid responsibility for harm and losses caused by the corporation -- began to appear in state corporate laws...

"In 1886, corporations emerged from the Supreme
Court case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad as "persons" under the law and thus could use the 14th Amendment to protect their equal rights. This meant that corporations were now entitled to
free speech, protection from searches and seizures, and could not be discriminated against. Suddenly,
corporations (artificial persons) had the same rights as real people."...

"At the state level, checks on corporate power were quickly eroding. In 1889, New Jersey became the
first state to permit corporations to own equity in one another, perhaps as an attempt to attract more
business. A "race to the bottom" quickly followed, with states all over the country madly gutting their
corporate laws to be the most business-friendly state. In 1896, New Jersey passed the revolutionary
"General Revision Act," permitting unlimited size and market share, removing all time limits on corporate
charters, reducing shareholder powers, and allowing all kinds of mergers, acquisitions, and purchases...

"Not to be outdone, Delaware passed its "General Incorporation Law" in 1899, which set the standard
by essentially allowing corporations to write all their own rules of governance. Today, nearly 60% of all
Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware.

"...Meanwhile, between 1895 and 1904, the first great merger wave consolidated 1,800 companies into 137 mega corporations or "trusts." When all was said and done, the corporation was transformed from a quasi-public, state-controlled organization limited in size to a gigantic unlimited private
organization with limited responsibility and limited accountability."

Read it all. (Bonus excellent font size!)

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf

Campaign contributions in this country = legalized bribery.

Putting legalized bribery on steroids is apparently OK with you, Mr Tea.

Bullshit Bruce. Did you send money to a campaign? If so, according to your logic, you are guilty of "bribery.

Oh, and Bruce, don't give us that 'you know what I mean'. No, YOU say what you mean. You might accept that kind of drivel from the likes of the Obamassiah, we don't.

No, Mr Fan, I'm pretty sure you DON'T know what I mean. Everyone else does. Just not you.

As usual.

What I should have said was, "The corrupt corporate/candidate symbiotic relationship system in this country = legalized bribery." Or something along those lines. I was trying to be brief. You may have noticed I have a tendency to go on and on.

You have some excellent points, Mr dead, but I'm pretty sure a smart lawyer (I'm not one) can find a way to "lessen or ameliorate" some of the worst effects of this decision. Perhaps I'm wrong. But pro-life lawyers found a way to get parental notification laws, partial-birth abortion bans, etc., around the seemingly straightforward Roe v. Wade decision.

Oh, and I stand corrected. I said that THIS decision was the most wrongheaded decision since Dred Scott. Actually, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific was worse.

Bruce

"And I would be ever so grateful. Wouldn't you? Perhaps to the point of wanting to do favors for that corporation or union. You? "

So umm what about Obama's fundraising during the election where you could enter a valid credit card number and the name mickey mouse and it applied the charge to the credit card. You know the same fundraising that removed Almost every validity check on credit card transactions. People were testing it by putting in their credit card number and Osama Bin Laden with a middle east address. Transaction went through.

I am sure that Obama doesnt mind all those union contributions either now does he which is still and always has been legal. You think that maybe they expect something back in return as well? or since we are talking about Obama that kind of stuff doesnt matter now does it. Maybe it should matter to you considering all the TAXPAYER money that Obama has thrown at the unions during the past year while screwing others in the process.

"I'm pretty sure you DON'T know what I mean. Everyone else does. Just not you."

Those of you at Wizbang who are mind readers, please identify yourselves please.

"You may have noticed I have a tendency to go on and on."

And on and on and on......just like your Obamassiah.

You don't have to be a mindreader, Brainiac. Abstract concepts like "context" and "generally accepted usage" aren't your strong suit, are they, Mr Fan?

The Internet, RM, is a fine place to argue with others about politics and such. But here's the thing:

If you accept everything you read on the Internet that you WANT to believe as Gospel fact, while discounting everything you DON'T want to believe as "liberal MSM bias," you develop a somewhat warped view of things. Just sayin'.

bh "If you accept everything you read on the Internet that you WANT to believe as Gospel fact, while discounting everything you DON'T want to believe as "liberal MSM bias," you develop a somewhat warped view of things. Just sayin'."

You've talked to dedicated NY times readers or viewers of MSNBC have you?

Sorry, should read never talked...

"If you accept everything you read on the Internet that you WANT to believe as Gospel fact, while discounting everything you DON'T want to believe as "liberal MSM bias," you develop a somewhat warped view of things. Just sayin'."

Yeah whatever, and everything You spew on here is twisted with a biased liberal slant.... Just sayin'.

I'm supposed to believe "facts" from tina s, the "fact checker"?

Snort.

Didja ever notice, 914, that pretty much all your comments here boil down to either "whatever" or "shut up!"?

Bruce, I noted you compared Citizens United v. FEC to Roe v. Wade. An interesting comparison -- if you're comparing opposites.

In Roe v. Wade, the court (in an incredibly poorly written and reasoned argument) said that there could be no restrictions in the first trimester, and only reasonable restrictions in the second. The wrangling you cited has been over finding a concrete meaning in the weasel-worded "reasonable."

In Citizens United, Congress tried to put what it considered "reasonable" restrictions during a very specific time period -- much like in Roe V. Wade. And the court struck that down, saying that it is the political equivalent of the first trimester -- NO restrictions.

So, what would you consider "reasonable" restrictions in light of the court's finding here? What sort of legislative response would carve out limits when the court specifically said none were acceptable?

Would it kill you to admit that, this once, Obama was wrong on the facts, wrong on the remedy and wrong on the solution? Or are you far more interested in picking fights and trying to obscure the topic at hand?

J.

Bruce Henry
Nice dodging the point. Throw a little smoke here, a bit of misdirection there.

Once again

you stated

""And I would be ever so grateful. Wouldn't you? Perhaps to the point of wanting to do favors for that corporation or union. You? "

I merely mentioned all the union favors Obama has done with taxpayer money and you naturally go running away. It is like you see firemen going to a fire and you feel that you have to point out the pretty rosebushes across the street from it.

'Would it kill you to admit that, this once, Obama was wrong on the facts, wrong on the remedy and wrong on the solution? '

He can't JT. The One commits no error, The One is never wrong. The One is infallible. All Hail The Obamassiah!

Obama thy name is coward.

His arguments on the case were devoid of facts of the case and stated in such away incite anger, all done in venue where the justices could not respond. Furthermore,if they did speak truth to power they would be derided for the disrespect shown to the president.

During the last year he been a Bully. He repeatedly attack corporations and if they try and defend or protect themselves he attacks them for having an opinion. BHO then implies Companies
should have no voice in any discussion or argument. Companies should just let government do whatever it wants to them.

BHO acts like a king of old ,whatever decries should be law no matter how it affects companies and their employees.

Either The 0 has a lousy speech writing staff, or he doesn't understand the law in this area.

Which is par for the course: shoot from the hip, demogogue it, then move on. When will the Rubes realize they voted for a hack who puts on a pose as a stateman?

If this were W's admin., this wouldn't be happening, but if it did, there would be a firestorm from the Press. But the Press = The 0 now.

Thank you for responding to my question, Mr Tea, after only 24 hours.

No, it wouldn't kill me to admit errors. I have done so many times on this blog, unlike some who comment on other peoples' sites. But we won't go there.

Obama may have been referring to the Tillman act of 1907 when he mentioned a "century of law," in which case he would not be "wrong on the facts."

Leaving aside the fact that "the remedy" and "the solution" are synonymous terms, I've already admitted that I'm not a lawyer, and that "Perhaps I'm wrong" to think a legislative remedy can be crafted. And I'm not dead yet!

I look forward to hearing your reply in another 24 hours, after you've had time to research the Tillman Act and to consult your psychic to tell me that's not what the President "really meant."

Ah, Senator Benjamin "pitchfork" Tillman (D-SC), he of the "Tillman Battleships" fame and virulent racist. Interesting fellow.

Doesn't seem to apply, lackwit. CU v. FEC dealt with independent expenditures, not direct contributions, and the ruling specifically said that their decision does NOT have bearing on direct contributions.

Nice attempt to carry water for your hero, BryanD, but really, really weak.

Got anything else?

J.

I guess you got me, Mr Tea.

Oh my God, I think I'm dying!

But seriously, whether the contributions are direct or "independent" the effects are the same, as I've already got YOUR hero, Mr dead, to agree.

So, really, not so weak after all. Got anything else?

BH,

"With a stroke of a pen, the (U.S. Supreme Court) decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures."

Charles Schumer on Thursday, January 21st, 2010 in a press conference

So BHO used one of the largest media hounds who know for mis statments and flase statement to attack the a supreme court decsion.
SO we have the dem using talking points.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/22/charles-schumer/campaign-finance-ruling-united-citizens-historical/

But seriously, whether the contributions are direct or "independent" the effects are the same, as I've already got YOUR hero, Mr dead, to agree.

The EFFECT is pretty much the same, but the law is concerned with the details. And it's the details that the law is concerned with.

I'm having no problems believing that Obama has an Ivy League degree and used to teach Constitutional Law at a law school. It takes someone hugely educated to be so arrogant to think that he could get away with such bullshit.

Of course, if he's surrounded with sycophants and lickspittles and lackwits like you (and I believe he is), it's not surprising that there was no one to tell him "excuse me, sir, but in that section you're completely talking out of your ass."

Not to mention the gross impropriety of launching a partisan atttack on the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address...

J.

Two "lackwits" in two comments, Mr Tea? Your namecalling skills are rusty. Last refuge, etc. etc.

I believe we have some common ground here, though, when you say he shouldn't have used this particular forum to say what he said. Reagan did it in a campaign speech in 1983 and GHW Bush did it too, but not in this venue. There were better ways to address this.

It always takes Bruce to somewhat admit he is wrong after a long debate. In Bruce's eyes, Obama can do no wrong and in this particular case, he can't blame Bush so they, the liberals, do not know what to do. Obama is a putz and it is so obvious his lack of experience is hurting the country. ww

Gee, Willie, I could have sworn I used the phrase, "Perhaps I'm wrong" in this thread about 24 hours ago.

You really need to let go of this idea that liberals like me think "Obama can do no wrong." I have plenty of criticisms of Obama, I just don't mention them on Wizbang for obvious reasons. Wouldn't want to start a feeding frenzy.

For that matter, the whole "Obamessiah" nonsense is, and always was, just that, nonsense. You guys got that into your heads from watching that "Barack=Britney" ad from 2008. Get over it.

bh "For that matter, the whole "Obamessiah" nonsense is, and always was, just that, nonsense. You guys got that into your heads from watching that "Barack=Britney" ad from 2008. Get over it."

Really, you can read minds now? How so, take a Kreskin corespondent course did you?

It's far more likely some got the idea watching and listening to some of his lemmings and on occasion obama himself:

"Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"-- Daily Kos

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."-- Barack Obama.

"He communicates God-like energy..."

-- Steve Davis (Charleston, SC)

"Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul"-- Commentator @ Chicago Sun Times

"I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."-- Halle Berry

"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." | "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."-- Chris Matthews.

"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves."-- Ezra Klein

"Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind."-- Gerald Campbell.

"I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let's say, blessed and highly favored. That's not routine. There's something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God's plan."-- Bill Rush

"A Lightworker -- An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being"-- Mark Morford.

"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama." -- Dinesh Sharma

bh, you were saying what?

While I recognize the names Ezra Klein and Halle Berry, I have no idea who Steve Davis, "commentator", Gerald Campbell, Bill Rush, Mark Morford, or Dinesh Sharma are. I'm guessing they're Obama supporters.

What I was saying is that I'll bet 90% of Obama's voters would have voted for Hillary, Edwards, Kucinich, or freaking Gravel as opposed to John McCain, especially after he picked Sarah Palin as a running mate.

I'm sure a certain percentage of Obama voters have, or had, unrealistic expectations, just as a certain percentage of Bush supporters believed God spoke to him directly (I think George himself was among that number!). But I damn sure wasn't one of 'em, as Willie charges. Very few of us think of Obama as the Second Coming. The rightwing myth that we do is just that. A myth.

BH,

The FEC believed under the section of MF that was struck down they had the ability to band books. Not just one official but multiple officers of the FEC admitted it. The law was an attack on free speech.
It allowed of an abuse power where the FEC could silence speech by giving and taking away the media exemption.

As for JM

John McCain did not loose because of Palin he lost
1. Because he did not express views which were distinct (he was basically BHO light ) so he did not motivate the base
2. John spent more time attacking Conservatives and Republicans than he did BHO.
3. His own campaign staff mishandled and tried ti take out Palin because more people came to her events.
4. MSM was against JM
5. Faux Racism If you do not vote for BHO you were a racist and we had many small minded people who believed it.
6. BHO was able to associate JM with Bush while all the time attacking anyone for associating him with communist radical friends.
7. The Press obfuscated the fact that the Dem were in control of the Budget for two years. They blamed Bush for spending large amounts which he did but did not mention that Dem wanted him to spend almost triple the amount
8. The most costly programs under Bush No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drugs were Bipartisan efforts.

Bruce, I'd wager that we can find a lot more Obama supporters who spoke of him in messianic languge than you'll find tea partiers who called themselves "teabaggers." Yet many of the same people who feel like you about the Obamessiah remarks use the vulgarism for the Tea Party people.

Wanna take that bet?

J.

You lost me, there, Mr Tea. "Who feel like you about the Obamessiah?" I JUST GOT THROUGH explaining that I didn't feel any way about the "Obamessiah", that the whole thing was mostly a figment of conservative imagination, at least in my opinion.

And you may have noticed that I myself don't use that term, at least since I discovered how badly it hurt your widdle feewings. I have no leverage over those who continue to use the vulgarism.

And even if I did take such a bet, what metric would we use to measure the results?

Look, don't say something stupid just to be saying something. If it's so important to you to have the last word here, make a statement, don't ask a question.

That's a long list of excuses there, mr hcddbz. Excuses are all they are, but it's an impressive list. I'd like to add:
9. The dog ate his homework
10. His alarm didn't go off
11. He had a geometry test and his mom made him stay home and study
12. His car wouldn't start

OK, a bit of hyperbole. "Supporters of Obama" would have been better.

And "teabagger" does not hurt my feelings. It's one of what I like to call AEWIs -- Asshole Early Warning Indicators. It shows that the person isn't serious about the discussion.

But back to the topic at hand (remember that) -- Obama was wrong on three grounds with that section of the State of the Union, and I'm wondering if you'll EVER run out of either excuses or diversions to avoid admitting that.

J.

Obama was "wrong on three grounds" according to you:
Wrong on the facts, wrong on the remedy, and wrong on the solution, right?

The "wrong on the facts" bit is debatable, as I've mentioned, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "the remedy" the same thing as "the solution"?

You seem a little desperate here, Mr Tea. Your rhetorical skills have been better. As in the comment, "...but the law is concerned with the details. And it's the details the law is concerned with."

It's no wonder you resorted to namecalling.