Byrd vs. Obama on the Constitution.

As in, Obama needs to stay on his side of the line drawn by it:

Byrd: Obama in power grab

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.

Not to mention a former Klansman, but the netroots have never cared about that before; why should they start now? Continue reading Byrd vs. Obama on the Constitution.

Jindal’s interview on the Today Show.

If you were disappointed in his performance yesterday – I wasn’t, but then, I’m much more interested in 2010 than I am in 2012 right now – this might improve your mood:

Via the Corner. Notice that he didn’t concede the points. You can’t let them define the points on which the debate is being held; if you do, they’re halfway to winning.

Crossposted to RedState.

Rep. Jeff Flake’s anti-earmark resolution up today.

As you know, it’s in response to the PMA meltdown/outrage (see here for some background posts):

Rep. Flake targets earmarks amidst PMA controversy
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the House’s most vocal critic of pork barrel spending, is trying to shake the ethics committee into action on the link between earmarks and campaign contributors.

Flake has seized on the public corruption investigation of PMA Group, a once-powerful lobbying force that has disintegrated in the wake of an FBI probe into fraudulent campaign donations to numerous members of Congress.

In the past 24 hours, Flake has highlighted earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill for PMA clients, written a scathing op-ed to The New York Times about Congress’s pay-to-play practices and offered a privileged resolution on the House floor that would force the House ethics panel to scrutinize the connection between earmarks and campaign cash and report back to the full body in two months.

Continue reading Rep. Jeff Flake’s anti-earmark resolution up today.

I mean to be snide about this, but Obama should hire better researchers.

We weren’t the only ones who noticed that nonsense about America inventing the automobile.

What? “Snide” doesn’t have to mean “incorrect:” it can mean “slyly disparaging,” which is what I’m aiming for. English is such a fun language for this sort of thing.

Moe Lane

PS: Actually, if I’m going to be snide, I might as well go whole hog. Here, White House! The Car: A History of the Automobile. It even has pictures.

PPS: Bush isn’t President any more, Clarke.  Stop dating yourself.

Crossposted at RedState.

NDCF Chair condemns Scott Murphy’s anti-military stance.

It stands for the National Defense Council Foundation…

…and it’s a NGO defense-oriented conservative think-tank that’s been calling for the conversion of American transportation to alternative fuels since at least 2003. Its chairman, retired military veteran James Martin, writes:

On behalf of NDCF supporters who proudly represent all branches of the military, it strikes me that Mr. Murphy’s writings at his alma mater, Harvard University, when he was editor of a university magazine, Perspective, do not jibe with the majority views of the people of the 20th Congressional District of New York.

Murphy apparently co-authored an editorial critical of the military and questioned its longstanding traditions and structure. In the same editorial, Murphy railed against having ROTC outposts on college campuses, “Bringing ROTC on campus is not the best way of helping the economically disadvantaged.” (Perspective, Summer 1989).

His attacks on our nation’s military demonstrate just how out-of-touch he is. This is the same District that was once served by the late Republican Congressman, Jerry Solomon.

First off, Jim Tedisco. Republican. Running for the seat. Doesn’t hate the military. Donate here.

Continue reading NDCF Chair condemns Scott Murphy’s anti-military stance.

Obama, his personal reputation, and his policy’s public perception.

Hoping to square that circle tonight, he is.

(Via RCP) Is the New York Times feeling well?

Obama Selling a New Deal, but Promising It Will Be Brief

It was only 13 years ago that Bill Clinton declared before a joint session of Congress that “the era of big government is over.” President Obama’s challenge on Tuesday night is to declare that, out of ugly necessity, big government is back — and then to make a persuasive case, with a specificity he has avoided until now, that if done right, this era will not last for long.

His aides say this is no moment for the lofty idealism of the inaugural address, 35 long days and roughly a thousand Dow Jones points ago. His task is to be at once reassuring and realistic, or, as one of Mr. Obama’s economic advisers said over the weekend, “to convince the country we’ve finally pulled the ripcord on the parachute, even if we can’t tell you how long we fall or where we land.”

The hardest part will be convincing his countrymen that they cannot save themselves without first saving the banks that let greed blot out prudence, the carmakers who ignored competitive reality for a quarter-century, and the homeowners who somehow persuaded themselves that housing prices only move up.

This article by David Sanger was generally sensible.
Continue reading Obama, his personal reputation, and his policy’s public perception.

Does NY-20’s Scott Murphy (D) still think that the military’s a bunch of racists?

Do not blame me for the fact that he is on the record with this.

(H/T: Hot Air) That’s a serious question, because he signed his name to an article saying precisely that back in college. The quote goes:

The military not only discriminates on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of sex and race. Women are not allowed to serve in combat even if they are physically superior to males who do serve in combat. And, while there are not explicit rules discriminating against minorities, the Congressional Black Caucus has found that “racism has become institutionalized at all levels of the military. Black and other minority service men are victims of discrimination from the time that they enter the services until the time that they are discharged.” Will Harvard choose to ignore this discrimination?

Murphy went on to declare that military values – which he proceeded to get wrong, as only a liberal Democratic Ivy League student can – are directly contradictory to those of Harvard University, or at least the Harvard University of twenty years ago. I would like to say that Harvard’s grown up a little since then, but it’d be a lie. Still, I’d like to know: has Murphy?

Moe Lane

PS: Jazz Shaw has more; so does this site, even if they can’t get the name of the NRCC right. But one of their commenters noted that parts of this district were once Gerald Solomon’s (I think), so that works out. And, of course, see also Erick’s post on the subject.

PPS: Jim Tedisco. Republican. Running for the seat. Doesn’t hate the military. Donate here.

Crossposted to RedState.