Wednesday, January 25, 2017

A Valentine to Jennifer Rubin, the most courageous commentator on our present reality

Sandy Levinson

I've suggested this before, but it's worth repeating that the two most truly admirable columnists in the country may well be Michael Gerson and Jennifer Rubin, both of them part of the ostensibly "conservative" cohort of columnists at the Washington Post.  They have been consistently and eloquently critical of our newly inaugurated president (who may or may not be a "sociopath," but is almost universally agreed to be otherwise unfit to be our president under any standard criteria, including previous experience, knowledge of relevant policy, and emotional maturality).  They have both become genuine heroes of mine, which means, among other things, that I will now read and take seriously even columns of theirs when I disagree with them (as when, say, Ms. Rubin attacks the Iran deal or expresses more support for the current Israeli position than I believe is merited).  They are both truly serious and commendable people, who are clearly willing to burn bridges to traditional friends and allies because of their own intellectual and moral integrity.  I've never met either, but it would be an honor to do so..Both deserve the award that the JFK library gives each year to those who are "profiles in courage" (an award, incidentally, that JFK would certainly never have won as a practicing politician). 

The gist of her column, provocatively titled "Maybe Trump is not lying," is that in fact he may not be "lying" in the sense of actually realizing that he is stating falsehoods.  Instead, he is truly delusionary, believing that what he is saying is "in fact" true, just in the way (my analogy, not hers) that a certain kind of schizophrenic claiming to hear voices from aliens contacting him/her from spaceships hovering above us in the ether may in fact be accurately conveying his/her perception of reality.  So who is worse, a mendacious clear-cut liar (think of Kelly Anne Conway, perhaps the single most loathesome person to emerge from the Trump entourage, even moreso than Steve Bannon, who probably does in fact believe some of his near-neo-Nazi pernicious nonsense) or a delusionary?   One might analyze this either as moral question or a policy question.  The former allows us to let the "sincere" schizophrenic off the hook for the reasons that we allow people to be acquitted on grounds of mental illness even as we immediately commit them to facilities not called "prisons" because they are in fact dangers to themselves or, more importantly, others.  The latter, on the other hand, requires us to ask which is in fact more of a truly danger as a would-be "leader."  (The answer, of course, may be that both are equal menaces.)  In any event, she concludes as follows:

We are not calling — yet — for invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. (“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”)
 We are calling for someone, perhaps his children, to see if they can prevail upon him to stop behaving in this way, for if not, legitimate worries will mount about whether he is able to carry out his duties. We also are saying that Republicans need to be pressed to state their view: Is he lying or is he unable to separate what he wants to believe and what exists, literally, in front of his eyes? The first makes him morally unfit, and was the basis upon which many #NeverTrumpers refused to vote for him. If the latter, they — and we all — have a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen. With Trump, however, we have learned the past provides no guarantees

So she is willing to suggest what others have been too tactful (or gutless) to note:  That we don't have to talk about impeachment, which requires wading into the swamp of legalistic arguments about what constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor."  We're already beginning to be subjected to endless debate about the one true meaning of the Emoluments Clause, which, frankly, I regard as exemplifying the kind of bubble of abstracted legalism that smart and well-trained lawyers live in.  Within a seminar room, it may be worth arguing whether the Emoluments Clause does or does not apply to the President because he is not an "officer" under a certain tendentious reading of 18th century literature.  Among other things, of course, this requires putting to one side that it is almost literally bizarre to assume that those who cared enough about foreign influence to put the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution in the first place would have thought that it should be perfectly all right for foreigners in effect to try to bribe a sitting president.  But I truly digress, for what makes Donald Trump so truly scary to almost any thoughtful individual (including, I have discovered, at least one of my colleagues at the University of Texas who in fact voted for him) is his emotional volatility.  (I should note, incidentally, that another colleague of mine, a trained physician, has suggested that Mr. Trump is exhibiting some symptions of early-onset dementia--which wouldn't be all that early given that he is, after all, 70.

The 25th Amendment, if one in fact takes it seriously as part of the Constitution, does offer a way to get rid of Mr. Trump tomorrow without having to submit to Talmudic debates about the particular extent to which he has committed "high crimes or misdemeanors."  To be sure, other kinds of debates are generated by the 25th Amendment, but, blessedly, none of them require getting into the swamp of originalism and the like.  One "merely" has to figure out how to discern whether or not a President has become unfit to carry out the responsibilities of his/her office.

Even if, as a practical matter, it is unimaginable that the 25th Amendment will in fact be invoked (any more than it was invoked in Reagan's second term, when one suspects that some of the inner circle were aware that Alzheimer's has set in), we we should ask ourselves exactly why it is unimaginable.  As she suggests, there is a perfectly good argument that he lacks the emotional stability to carry out the solemn duties of his office.  Is this proof that the 25th Amendment, added to the Constitution only after John F. Kennedy's assassination and the realization that we would have been far worse off had he lived  and lingered as a severely injured President, perhaps like Woodrow Wilson, is exactly what James Madison thought was true about lots of the Constitution--that is, that the relevant clauses were simply "parchment barriers," not to be taken really seriously.

It would be a very good thing if the press, every time it interrogated Vice President Pence and other members of the Cabinet, asked if they were aware of the Amendment and if they had any personal concerns about Mr. Trump's actual abilities carry out his office.  Do they really believe it is irrelevant what a President believes to be the case about the world, whether it's space aliens from Venus, the non-existence of global warming, the presence or electoral fraud, or whatever?  I assume that they do not share the same delusions that Mr. Trump does, which means they are, like Ms.Conway, only mendacious enablers who deserve the unalloyed contempt of the country in a way that a pathetically deluded schizophrenic does not.  Perhaps Donald Trump indeed has the excuse of being seriously mentally ill.  There is no excuse for his entourage of enablement, including people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.  .  


This comment has been removed by the author.


Disagreeing with the Democrat media or progressive common wisdom is not (yet) considered a mental illness the way disagreeing with the regime or the state tun media was in the Soviet Union.

The alleged evidence of Trump's insanity is far better proof of the ignorance to dishonesty of his accusers.

1) 3-5 million people (presumably illegal aliens and the dead) voted fraudulently.

A two minute google search puts the lie to the Democrat media retort that there is no evidence for this proposition:

We can argue over the exact numbers, but there is evidence of widespread voting by illegal aliens.

During the daily presser, NPR's Mara Liasson challenged the Trump administration to investigate this claim and Trump accepted the challenge in a tweet the very next day. Now, the Democrats and their media are howling that the very act of gathering evidence they claim does not exist is itself an attack on the legitimacy of our Democracy.

There is a very good reason the the Democrats and their media ferociously oppose laws requiring identification before voting.

2) More people attended my inauguration than did Obama's inauguration.

Here was Trump's view of the crowd filling up the DC mall:

To counter this claim, the Democrat media issued this alleged side-by-side comparison of the crowds facing the president from the opposite point of view, allegedly showing the Trump crowd only filling up about half the mall:

The furiously retweeted media image was a lie.

This CNN gigapixel of the crowd from an oblique angle showed the mall was indeed full:

I will let the fan boys and girls of these narcissist presidents argue over whose packed mall contained more people. However, Trump's personal view of his crowd was not delusional.

3) Climate change is a hoax.

Anyone with a middle school education in the scientific method and who can read a chart knows there is no correlation between exponentially increasing human GHG emissions and the small half degree temperature fluctuations up and down over the past century. Since the large El Nino in 1997, temperatures have not changed to a statistically significant degree for nearly two decades even though the amount of human GHG emissions during this time equalled all prior emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Without correlation between two variables, there can be no causation.

The so called consensus evidence human GHG emissions cause atmospheric warming consists entirely of climate models assuming the validity of hypothesis. However, NONE of these models has successfully explained past temperatures or predicted future temperatures to any degree of statistical reliability. In short, reality has pretty conclusively disproven the hypothesis.

In the future, you may want to verify the truth of progressive common wisdom before accusing Trump of being delusional for questioning it.

Other conservatives who deserve to be honored are Dan Drezner and Evan McMullin.

Sadly, no actual politicians, neither Dem nor R, seem to be up to the job.

This comment has been removed by the author.

SPAM I AM! comes to the defense of a person who he claimed repeatedly in comments at this Blog was a fascist. How can one rely upon the concepts of a rural DUI lawyer on what constitutes evidence? Is it necessary to repeat that SPAM still thinks that The Gilded Age of the late 19th century were America's best days? SPAM believes the 2nd A supports armed revolution under out Constitution. No SPAM is a sad troll once again regurgitating his bile.

As to Trump, America's first PG* President, he channels Seinfeld's George Costanza's "It's not a lie if you believe it."

* Access Hollywood tapes


"Sadly, no actual politicians, neither Dem nor R, seem to be up to the job."

John Lewis etc. is not "up to the job"? What does one have to do to be "up to the job"?

Ok, John Lewis and those who joined him in the boycott. I was thinking of Senators, not one of whom seems to understand his or her role.

I think Warren will be up to it.

Warren plans to vote to confirm Ben Carson at HUD.

Her job is to vote no. On everything: nominees, bills, EVERYTHING. And to deliver pithy explanations why.

Sandy: It would be a very good thing if the press, every time it interrogated Vice President Pence and other members of the Cabinet, asked if they were aware of the Amendment and if they had any personal concerns about Mr. Trump's actual abilities carry out his office.

During the campaign, a supermajority of voters correctly believed the Democrat media is biased against Trump.

Even if your allegation Trump is insane had some basis in reality, is the boy who cried wolf Democrat media the messenger you would choose?

Warren plans to vote to confirm Ben Carson at HUD.

Her job is to vote no. On everything: nominees, bills, EVERYTHING. And to deliver pithy explanations why.
# posted by Blogger Mark Field : 6:40 PM

Hopefully she's voting yes because she think Carson will help sink the Trump administration, but it would help if she would make a pithy statement confirming that strategy.

Bart, you really are an imbecile.

Over the years at this Blog SPAM I AM! has played the role of Chicken Littlee with his The sky is falling, ... " excesses during the Obama years. Now SPAM supports the man he called a fascist repeatedly during the campaign AND AFTER the election tries to play cute with his : " ... the boy who cried wolf ... " J'accuse." SPAM probably thinks Trump is as sane as he is. [No need to cue BB this soon.]

Hopefully she's voting yes because she think Carson will help sink the Trump administration, but it would help if she would make a pithy statement confirming that strategy.

If that is her strategy, she should taunt Trump with it.

But I think it's a bad strategy anyway. When things go wrong at HUD -- and with Carson in charge, how could it be otherwise? -- the argument that she intended that result won't look very good.

The way I see it, these votes are like the Iraq War vote. It won't matter what "good" reason you had for it once things get really bad.

Yes, I agree that any votes helping Trump in any way are a very bad idea. I expected better from Warren.

This comment has been removed by the author.

As to Ben Carson, the guy not too long ago himself said he wasn't fit to be in the Cabinet. I realize taking anything he says seriously on political matters should be taken with a grain of salt, but rather telling.

And, I saw some suggestion that there is some value in having a hack there as compared to a true believer who could cause damage. But, hackish grifters cause damage too. Plus, those actually care about government should be wary of inserting incompetents. The public will be cynical about government in general. This might appeal to some ... at least when it doesn't hurt what they care about. OTOH, some of use see a value in a public sphere to serve our needs.

I realize Democrats might want to pick their battles. Nikki Haley being confirmed doesn't appall me or anything. A few of these people even seem sane and competent. A 'just say no' policy might be best, but that just isn't in the Democrats DNA. They actually want to govern some. But, you have to be sensible here even there.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Briefly, I see more immediate application of the Emolument Clause than appeals to the 25A, even if the text might open up theoretical possibilities. Perhaps, a "sociopath" might have certain medical issues there or other concerns for his psychiatric issues. It is too late in the day to totally close off possibilities, right?

I guess, however ill advised, I am still somewhat conservative about such things on some level. Anyway, emoluments and general concerns about corruption etc. have special application to the current occupant in the White House. And, the basic principles being raised have the additional value of being quite valid and important in the promotion of civil republican values.

Finally, lawyers and wannabees can play games there, but think there is some broad public concerns there too. Sorry for deletions -- keyboard issues.


Regardless of the grounds, from where do you see the Democrats obtaining a House majority to impeach, nevertheless a supermajority in the Senate to convict?

The Democrats would be better served thinking up some new campaign strategy which does well in focus groups and finding some competent candidates to carry it out. Americans have short memories and they will eventually forget about the Obama error.

Americans have short memories and they will eventually forget about the Obama error.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:18 PM

Obama's approval rating is at 60%, you racist pile of crap.

"As to Ben Carson, the guy not too long ago himself said he wasn't fit to be in the Cabinet."

Dunning-Kruger. The stupid and ignorant over-estimate themselves, the smart and competent over-estimate everybody else.

The quote Brett provides:

Dunning-Kruger. "The stupid and ignorant over-estimate themselves, the smart and competent over-estimate everybody else."

would seem to apply the former to Trump and the latter to Carson. Nice pick up, Brett.


There are those rare people who are both competent, and who don't underestimate themselves. How do you tell them from the incompetents who have unjustifiably high opinions of themselves?

You look at whether they succeed at what they set out to do.

By that standard? Trump qualifies.

Regarding the 25th A remedy, Gail Collins' NYTimes column today points to Trump as being VP Pence's puppet. Absent Trump via the 25th A, Pence gets directly in charge. This could be an extreme variation of swapping a headache for an upset stomach. The 25th A might resolve a constitutional crisis by creating another constitutional crisis. Impeachment of Trump would do the same. This seems an appropriate time to re-release "Dr. Strangelove."

By the Bybee (whom Trump may bring back?), Brett once again plays Humpty-Dumpty. Brett offers:

"You look at whether they succeed at what they set out to do."

What about the "standards" utilized for whatever successes Brett feels Trump qualifies for, whether pre- or post-campaign?

Brett's use of Dunning-Kruger was opaque, perhaps intentionally for another photo-op moment of an effort at comical intimidation.

I find it comical watching this. First recounts, then demanding that electors be unfaithful, (Including death threats, of course.) then trying to convince the House to reject the electors' votes, now talk of having Trump declared incompetent or impeached, and fantasies about him really being somebody else's puppet.

Look, you lost the election, Trump is going to be President for, barring some medical event, at least four years. It happens, get over it.

Yes, that implies that policies you don't like will be put in place, programs you do like will be ended, laws you disliked will be enforced again. What did somebody say a few years ago? "Elections have consequences."? Indeed, they do.

bb: Obama's approval rating is at 60%, you racist pile of crap.

If 60% of the voters approved of the job Obama was doing , Clinton would have won like Bush 88.

Of course, these are the same polls claiming Hillary was leading like FDR 32 less than a month from the election.

Are you beginning to get a clue?

Trump's populist movement helped Trump, America's first self-proclaimed PG* President win the EC. Is there a populist in the cabinet nominees of Trump, someone like a Brett, representative of angry oder white undereducated white males constituting Trump's base? Trump brags about the nominees' - and his own - high IQs (but w/o providing evidence) higher than any other preceding cabinet.

* Access Hollywood tapes

I think this nicely describes the situation. Trump is manipulating the left and the media to his advantage, and they don't even comprehend that it's happening. They obsess over tweets and throwaway remarks at press conferences, while under the cover of that he's making huge progress in remaking US policy.

It's an extension of how he ran his campaign, you'd think they'd have picked up on it by now, and adapted. But they can't, because it fits too well with their own strategy for attempting to delegitimize him. And so he plays them like a fiddle.

It's remarkable to watch it going on, and the media just continuing to fall for it, day after day.


You can also look at the situation as the Democrat media reporting on silly stuff in an attempt to distract from Trump's rather popular policy moves.

I suspect this is more likely the case.

SPAM I AM! is now officially a mouthpiece, along with Brett, for his fascist Trump, America's first PG* President. Yes, SPAM has swallowed the leader hook, line and sinker. I suspect this is more than likely the case. Will this get SPAM a fed appointment to take him away from his boring rural DUI law practice? Nah.

* Access Hollywood tapes

"You look at whether they succeed at what they set out to do."

So, Trump is competent at winning elections, especially if when unfortunate things help him to do so. His past attempt at office didn't go as well. Though his many opponents across the political spectrum didn't like how he did it, they didn't really begrudge him that. It's the actual job that is the concern really though him winning the nomination etc. is a problem big picture too

Trump and Carson by your light is in the same position here. Carson set out to get national exposure, including support from a base of supporters. Check. He early on supported Trump and unlike Cruz didn't waver back/forth. And, in the end, he got a position in the administration, continuing his success.

"Look, you lost the election, Trump is going to be President for, barring some medical event, at least four years. It happens, get over it."

This is how Brett and the Republicans acted when Clinton and Obama won elections. They got over it. Never brought up impeachment or anything else, just a matter of winning at the ballot box. Never brought up other things, realizing they were not likely to happen, but arguing on principle it was the right thing.

The Constitution sets in place various ways to check and balance. Now, I realize both Brett and Sandy Levinson doesn't like certain aspects of it, seems those who want to respect its terms, can very well use it in various ways to challenge those in office. I know Trump has "the right enemies" and he is amusing in that senses, but the rules apply to him too.

The Electoral College, e.g., leaves open faithless electors. If someone cares about original understanding, their independence was in fact quite expected in that respect. Someone who was agnostic about Obama's citizenship and some other constitutional related positions taken really isn't that convincing as someone who finds it ridiculous to suggest the 25A might be used. Brett's positions there were outliers and/or he realized that he was a voice in the wilderness. And, the typical Trump opponent realizes the EC etc. wasn't going to save them either.

Finally, Brett again supports his guy by applying different standards to him regarding the "puppet fantasy." An objective person would look at the evidence and find it quite concerning about how Trump has been so pro-Putin, which seems rather curious for such a tough negotiator type. At least, they would be agnostic about the matter, particularly given Putin has skills at geopolitical workings that very well might best someone like Trump.

OTOH, none of this is surprising if you are not objective.

I suggest you produce evidence that I suggested impeaching Obama. Or urged that electors be unfaithful, or that the House not accept their votes, or that he be declared incompetent.

I did, in fact, get over it. He was a lousy President, but he was President.

Joe: This is how Brett and the Republicans acted when Clinton and Obama won elections.


I guess I missed the GOP rioting and vandalism, calling for electors to ignore the voters in their states, making arguments to impeach Clinton and Obama before they had the opportunity to engage in high crimes and misdemeanors, and calling C/O everything from sociopaths to insane.

I'm sorry, but currently Democrats have the corner on election loss derangement syndrome.

"He was a lousy President, but he was President."

Uh huh. And, people realize Trump is President, but think he's a lousy one. The "Not My President" thing should not be taken totally literally there.

I didn't just cite you -- I cited you and Republicans. And, yes, you did not simply accept people you thought were lousy presidents in some way without comment. Ironically, I even recall you saying you thought George Bush did impeachable things.

You was agnostic about Obama being a citizen. This would mean he might not have been qualified to be POTUS. You didn't simply "get over it," but made your opinions known there. Many Republicans, obviously, did a lot regarding Clinton and Obama other than waiting to beat him at the polls.

This is so obviously apparently that you skip over that part.

Trump hasn't yet done much. He's issued some gag orders, drafted some poorly worded aspirational EOs, and made some appointments. There's not yet much domestic policy to focus on and it's early yet in his illegitimate "presidency".

Personally, I'd rather see the Resistance focus on his appointments rather than his deranged statements. That said, Brett may see Trump as engaging in some type of performance art (I'm speculating that's how he'd describe it), but I see those statements as the real Trump. That means that a focus on those statements does communicate to the political class that the man is deranged. That won't matter in the short term, because Ryan and McConnell are so anxious to cut taxes on millionaires that they'll put up with a lot. But once things go south, I suspect it'll have an impact.

And, of course, Trump's statements about foreign policy do have an impact. He's doing lasting harm to the US there, so it'd be worth calling attention to that. Still, most Americans don't pay much attention to foreign policy until stuff goes wrong (Iraq), so I understand why that gets less focus at this point.

Anyway, bottom line, just waiting to defeat people on Election Day is not how it works in this country. There are a range of things to do, sometimes based on the facts on the ground. This is basic stuff, though how best to do it is a big question.

And, sometimes, the suggestions made by a minority are not very convincing. OTOH, some people making this argument shouldn't throw stones in glasshouses.


"I didn't just cite you -- I cited you and Republicans."

Right, and that requires you citing something we had in common. That some small number of Republicans never accepted Obama as legitimate really says nothing about me.

"You was agnostic about Obama being a citizen."

Pfft. I said right out that I thought the Birthers were entitled to lose on the merits, rather than have the case dismissed on standing. In fact, I went so far as to note that the candidate who really had the natural born citizen problem was McCain, not Obama.

While it was theoretically possible for Obama to have been born abroad, this would have required considerable effort to be put in faking evidence, at a time when nobody would have had sufficient motive. So, basically you're characterizing distinguishing between contingent and logically necessary truths as "agnosticism". That's not what the word means.

"Personally, I'd rather see the Resistance focus on his appointments rather than his deranged statements"

There are various things to focus on, but each can do what they are best able to do. There already has been pushback on his executive orders and presidential actions and it's best to start right away there. As noted at Lawfare regarding interrogations, what exactly these orders mean might be unclear, but they are likely to do various amounts of harm in the long run. See also, the "voting fraud" b.s. which will poison the well that is already poisoned (see Election Law Blog etc.). And, it's typical Republican activity, but reattaching the gag rule will cause harm too.

The appointments are useful targets, but ultimately the concern is policy. Thus, Nikki Haley might be a reasonable (if not that qualified in the field) pick to the UN, but she is responsible for policies that come from above.

Are you beginning to get a clue?
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:44 AM

Loud and clear. You're an imbecile.


This comment has been removed by the author.

The usual suspects have been around for a while.

The basic point remains that we don't simply accept elections and wait for four years. Republicans surely didn't and not just "some small number." This might be missed among the pin-pricking here, but I spoke in broad terms.

I'm not going to try to go through around a decade of comments, but it is true actually that Brett at one point responded to a critic by saying he thought Bush43 did impeachable things. He realized realistically nothing would be done, but that isn't quite the same thing. SL likewise said things he didn't think would occur.

Likewise, Brett criticized various Democrats he thought did illegal and/or unconstitutional things. He did not simply accept they were in office and that we just will have to wait two-four years to defeat them at the polls. That might be the reality of the situation, but he made his opinions know on what should occur from time to time. This includes being upset at what actually occurred.

Finally, Brett did at various times leave open the possibility that Obama was not a citizen. He received some rather strong push-back and repeatedly blandly noted he left the matter open as a possibility, the exact language not the same each time. The hairsplitting definition of "agnostic" is duly noted.

Again, the actual point is that neither Brett and more importantly (since they are actually in office) Republicans didn't just accept people were in office and try to defeat them two to four years hence.

"The basic point remains that we don't simply accept elections and wait for four years."

Depends on the value of "simply accept". How many of Obama's electors got death threats demanding they vote for somebody else? Did anybody demand that the House not count their votes? Suggest that it vote to impeach on day one?

Yes, of course if you lose a Presidential election, but have seats in the legislature, you have options to fight the President. Which is quite different from not accepting that he got elected. Accepting that somebody is President doesn't mandate agreeing with them. But what Democrats like Sandy are up to know is a whole different ballgame.

"Finally, Brett did at various times leave open the possibility that Obama was not a citizen."

Only on the level that his birthplace was a contingent fact. I was quite clear from the beginning that I considered his not being a natural born citizen extremely unlikely. The demand that I set the probability at 100.000 repeating percent, instead of 99.99%, I dismiss as irrational. You'll just have to live with that, it's a matter of epistemic hygiene.

It seems official that the Trump Administration has designated Brett to defend at this Blog Trump's barefaced lies. Brett's photo ops might serve as his qualifications.

Perhaps this weekend will provide time to go into this Blog's archives beginning in January, 2009, to test Brett's denials to Joe. At the same time SPAM I AM!'s comments can be checked. I commission progressive visitors to this Blog to join in revealing the Brettbart (the really, really "unBreit") negative comments early on in Obama's Administration. First prize is a free one-week stay at the Trump Hotel Annex to the White House; second prize is a free two-week stay. Foreign princes, states ineligible due to constitutional limitations.

[Note: The Brettbart (the really, really "unBreit") tag team is oblivious to what they have said that appear in the Archives of this Blog.]

The silence since my 4:30 PM comment is deafening. This is a reality content, guys. As a nudge, here's a link to the Archives of this Blog:

for Jack Balkin's post of January 22, 2009 "Why Barack Obama Still Isn't President".

Jack permitted comments for this post and there were over 200. Spend some time on Jack's post and the comments and get into this contest. (There was a bit of nostalgia as several of the then "usual suspects" no longer, or rarely, comment currently. And I miss them, especially "Cheers.")

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts