Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 29, 2008
POLITICS: Josh Marshall Wants McCain To Spend All His Time Campaigning Against His Supporters

Well, of course that's what Josh wants. He helpfully explains to us what McCain's actual strategy is (hint: it's racist!), as evidenced by ... well, no evidence other than Josh's assertion that it would insult his intelligence to ask him for evidence. I guess his intelligence is easily insulted.

Actually, he does offer one specific evidentiary test to show that McCain's strategy is racist: "If McCain really wants to repudiate this stuff, he can start with the Tennessee Republican party". Which we know that McCain, being a racisty racist, won't do. Well, except that he did. So that, too, is proof of what a diabolical racist McCain is. Josh Marshall can't lose!

So keep your eyes peeled for the new location of the goalposts. (Here's one). The goal, though, remains to have McCain spend all his time criticizing Republicans and live in fear of criticizing his opponent. But then, as we lawyers would say, Josh Marshall's posts are never introduced for the truth of the matter, only as verbal acts.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 5:50 PM | Politics 2008 | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Isn't it interesting that Obama gets endorsed by the Nation of Islam and that makes McCain a racist. If you want to hear a racist line why not ask King Louie. He may be even more racist than Robert Byrd.

Posted by: maddirishman at March 1, 2008 5:13 PM

Yeah, but Obama repudiated the endorsent of Farrakhan while McCain all but tongue kissed old Crazy Bigoted Pastor Hagee who endorsed him. Nice try, yet again.

Posted by: jim at March 1, 2008 5:44 PM

I get the impression that Marshall wants to limit McCain to refuting pointless statements made by his supporters about whether his opponent's middle name is Hussein and other things that have little to do with the real issues related to the chief executive: military CIC, signing or vetoing legislation, negotiating treaties, making judicial appointments and the other mundane tasks noted in Article II, Section 2.

Marshall's strategy won't work with me, but I'm just some gun nut in Sacramento, so how would I ever have the intellectual sophistication to possibly follow such in depth reasoning. I would welcome the day when Marshall would actually discuss the stated duties for the office, but that would require reading Article II, Section 2, and such a deep thinker as he probably has no time for that.

In the interim, I can always inform myself by perusing the various platforms to see which of the two is actually making an effort to present qualification for what the Constitution requires.

So far, I can clearly see that while BO certainly seems to have all the needed qualities to serve the nation as a tax payer funded Santa Claus, he does not impress me as having any of the other qualifications needed for the job. (Oh yeah, I don't find Santa anywhere in the US Constitution, but maybe BO is working from another version, from some alternate country or universe). In fact, I was depressed to find that very few of his proposals are not based on increasing government spending, which I read as increasing taxes. The notion that we can solve all of our problems by classifying wealth earners above a certain level as thieves is by definition Marxist class warfare, and is diametrically opposed to the notion that we should not covet another persons belongings. (I say this only because BO claims to be a Christian, and I think that God provided this particular Commandment to prevent needless and destructive violence over money.) Perhaps BO actually prefers Marx, in which case, he should just fess up and admit it.

In contrast, McCain's platform seems based on the notion that the money I earn is actually mine, and not the government's by default. Since he was low in my list during the primaries, I was amazed that his pitch is as good as it is. I urge you all to read both of their "issues" pages for yourselves just to see what's what without letting me, or Joshua Marshall influence you.

So, fool that I am, I'm hoping for an actual discussion of the issues within the framework of what the Constitution actually describes as the proper function of government. Yeah, right!

Posted by: NRA Life Member at March 1, 2008 6:28 PM

You remember when James Taranto first labeled the Dem nominee in '04 as "the haughty French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam"? I propose that we all refer to Mr. Marshall as "the blogger who collaborated in the Rathergate memo story that turned out to be a Microsoft Word document that any 8 year old could recognize, yet he didn't".

Dude will never live it down in my book. Of course, that was one of the last things I read of his, now that I think about it.

Posted by: RW at March 1, 2008 8:24 PM

BTW, the "they're racists" campaign is what the nutroots types will wage. Not Obama or his official campaign, they appear to be above that. The DNC and the nutroots? They can't wait.

We'll see how the "if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist" them plays & if it's any more successful than Andrew Sullivan's "if you don't support gay marriage, you're a bigot" avalanche of public support (it did happen, right?).

Posted by: RW at March 1, 2008 8:28 PM

Just curious - if Obama gets the nomination, how many more times will we see this.

"State, local, or allied group": Hussein!
"McCain/VP/Higher level": Please don't do that. See, we're tolerant! And, uh, don't do it again in 3 weeks.

Posted by: Dave at March 1, 2008 8:45 PM

OK Crank, from one lawyer to another, since McCain (and you, I presume) are "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS," and support Scalia, the Sphinx and "Scalito" isn't McCain prohibited from serving since he is not a natural born citizen?

Posted by: Magrooder at March 1, 2008 10:54 PM

the Sphinx?

The short answer is that he can - we have had several threads on this at RedState. here is one from several months ago. Basically, the Constitution doesn't define the term but it is hard to see how a child born to two citizen parents on a US military base is not a natural born citizen.

Posted by: The Crank at March 1, 2008 11:12 PM

The big issue I have with conservatives on the Constitution is the same one that I have with liberals, and everyone else in between. The Constitution means what "I" say it means, and you are all wrong.

Seriously, the idea that you have to be natural born can be interpreted as maybe , uh, Madison just saw Macbeth, and thought anyone not born of woman is in deep shit when you are Thane of .... well you get the drift. Stop with the semantic bullshit on all counts. And if you think Scalia or Thomas are your favorite justices, then you are as useless as those who thought Douglas and Brennan were. If you can figure out how they will vote before the argument starts, then who needs them? As Andrew Carnegie once said, "If you have two partners who always agree, one of them is not needed."

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at March 2, 2008 10:01 AM

Daryl, I follow your logic, but I'd like to make one comment. I do not see the Constitution as an obtuse document (like say the merger contract that would be drawn up to make two mega corporations into one). It is very readable, and should be easily evident as to it's meaning. Of course you are right that different justices have seen different things in it and thus most decisions are split to some degree, but that does not mean that it is so difficult to understand that this should be inevitable.

In order to strike down the Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, Justice William Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” It is judicial opinions such as these that have brought us to such inane questions as, is John McCain a natural born citizen due to his birth in the Canal Zone. Natural born should be obvious, but due to incompetents like Douglas, it now can mean anything.

Daryl, I'm sure that you've signed more than one mortgage contract in your life. If the interest on one was fixed, would you be peeved if some judge said that it was going to be raised because it was inconsistent with rates charged in nine European countries, and thus had given you an unfair advantage. I know I'm going a little overboard, but of course it's just to make the following point: Unless you have a political ax to grind, the Constitution is plainly written and means exactly what it says, and if it isn't in there, it's clearly left to the states. OK, I'm done now.

Posted by: NRA Life Member at March 2, 2008 6:56 PM

When conservative judges want to reach a certain result they "read into" the Constitution language that isnt there such as; giving money to political candidates is"free speech", or minimum wage legislation interferes with the "right to contract", or "bong hits for Jesus isnt speech". The fact is that the Constitution sets up our basic governmental structure but does not specifically address every potential legal dispute that might arise. Its meaning though usually clear is not specific to every question that arises under it. And nowhere does the Constitution say that the proper role of the president is to ensure that the public "keeps its money" as NRA implies. With the amount of wars that McCain is seeking to wage or maintain its a fallacy anyway to suggest that he'll spend less taxpayer money than the Dems. He's much more of a welfare statist anyway than his "issue papers" claim; particularly if you look at his actual votes.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at March 2, 2008 11:56 PM

A friend and I had a long email debate over "racism" and politics, prompted by my concern that Democrats will play the race card in an Obama-McCain matchup.

First, I contend that false claims of "racist politics" are themselves an example of racist politics. They serve the same purpose.

Second, there is no punishment for making false claims of "racist politics" or "racism!" in general. I challenged my friend to cite an example in which such false claims ever produce the negative reaction that the claims themselves do. I'm still waiting. If it happens, it's extremely rare. Which is to say there is nothing to discourage Democrats from making such charges, and plenty to encourage it.

Posted by: CJ at March 3, 2008 10:15 AM

I do not mean to imply what Seth thinks I am, "And nowhere does the Constitution say that the proper role of the president is to ensure that the public "keeps its money" as NRA implies.". I emphatically say that inceasing taxes is not a wise thing to do, but I recognize that there is no Constitutional limit. (It is noteworthy that the marginal rate was over 90% until 1964).

I referred to Article 2 Section II to merely say that BO being up to the job is not a matter of what his middle name is, it's more of whether he is able to do the enumerated functions competently.

Posted by: NRA Life Member at March 3, 2008 11:48 AM

Crank, I agree that a sensible reading of "natural born citizen" should include persons born in circumstances like McCain. My point was rather that it is by no means unambiguous and to pretend, as Scalia does and as NRA Life Member believes he (she?) can do, is just that, fiction.

Sure many Douglas opinions are unsatisfying, but Scalia's sophistry disguised as erudition is no better. The Constituion is a living document and has to be interpreted in the context of today. That doesn't mean one can make it say anything; it is also true that it doesn't say everything.

Posted by: Magrooder at March 4, 2008 10:39 AM

***The Constituion is a living document and has to be interpreted in the context of today. ****


I suppose that means it's officially passed its third trimester, then, since the USSC has ruled that anything prior isn't truly alive.

Posted by: RW at March 5, 2008 12:53 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg