NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

is bill maher's show actually that popular? idgi

a few libs I know still love'em

that makes me sad, the things that entertain others make me sad

Don't be religulous.

wow if only there were some kind of historical record to examine we could determine if ppl voted on things like slavery and if it was good small r republicanism that ended slavery huh well I guess we’ll never know

OTFM Maher is such a goddamned idiot

I suspect Williamson's point was that it took a war to end slavery because -- eh why bother

hat’s like saying, well you have freedom of the press but if you want to have a press, it’s $100 million, well you can’t do that because that’s big money in journalism.” Maher and the crowd seemed a bit stunned by the cogency of that

does someone wanna bother explaining this argument to me cuz it seems completely incoherent afaict. He's equating the price of presses (which are set by the market) as equivalent to the price of running in an election (which is set by a market only because we don't have publicly financed elections)?

also since when does free speech = owning a free printing press? that is not what the amendment is about...

He appears to be equating "freedom of the press" with owning a daily newspaper or magazines with a mass circulation in the hundreds of thousands, which is such a restrictive definition that the First Amendment would not have applied to anything at all when it was written in 1789.

Then, as now, it merely referred to the printed word, which was (and still is) important because it is a durable form that can be circulated widely. Samizdat publishing in the USSR is an excellent recent example of an influential and wide circulated 'press' that cost one hell of a lot less than $100 million.

It sounded like he was saying that a right isn’t really a right if the government can put a big restriction on it

I'm a bit stunned by your cogency.

the government puts big restrictions on all kinds of rights! I mean, name me a right the government *doesn't* put any restrictions on. It's okay, I can wait.

Lol “any”

What a take from the National Review. Calling Brett Kavanaugh a "bro" is the same as racial or ethnic stereotyping, apparently. pic.twitter.com/OmM3Kj7CrJ

— Timothy Johnson (@timothywjohnson) September 20, 2019

The morning after the Taylor testimony about Ukraine, there's not a peep about it on The Corner. Instead, the lead headline is "The Academic Left Can Be Very Nasty."

it's called keeping your eye on the ball

The Venerable Kevin:

I am no great believer in the wisdom of “We the People,” but the people still must be consulted from time to time. This is one of those times. The impeachment of Donald Trump would represent the effective nullification of the 2016 presidential election; that the Democrats have been laying the groundwork for impeaching Trump since before he was sworn in rather than in response to some particular episode or disclosure forces us to think of it that way. Which is why, as I argue today, Nancy Pelosi must bring these hearings out of the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal makes a similar case here.

The lack of serious leadership in Congress is the great political problem of our time. It has contributed mightily to the mutation of the presidency into its current caesaropapist form. But even when Congress rouses itself to take on the president, it apparently cannot manage to do so in a credible and liberal fashion. So far, Nancy Pelosi has made as strong an argument against her own leadership as she has that of Donald Trump. And that’s saying something.

caesaropapist!

I'm always confused when people talk about impeachment nullifying an election. We would have Pence as President, a guy chosen by Donald Trump as the person who would replace him in the event of death or removal.

Someone remind me—was Kevvy baby a never trumper or was he one of NRO’s wait and see guys?

He hates Trump, hates his wife, hates your life,

The Bible Is Our National Book | https://t.co/YPvORp1niF via @RichLowry pic.twitter.com/t8HU78c5Tk

— National Review (@NRO) November 5, 2019

wow bold pick. even with that hacky ending?

I’m waiting til it gets the Oprah’s book club seal of approval. It’s like, yeah I could read other books, but why bother when you know the level of quality that the book club guarantees?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIt5KnIXYAIvQ5a?format=jpg&name=large

lol

i thought scorcese's marvel burn was spot on. never have i identified so strongly with a curmudgeonly old man who thinks the old days were better

yeah i'm honestly surprised it's generated so much controversy, it's like saying the earth is round imo

This is painful. These guys have suddenly discovered BothSidesism.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ_rAhuXYAAyI22.png:small

news flash

quelle surprise

an oldie but a goodie

Unpatriotic Conservatives
By DAVID FRUM
March 25, 2003 2:00 PM

From the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves “conservatives.”

These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, “Can you assure American viewers . . . that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?” Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it....

it goes on. and on, and on, and on. wow. i didn't understand how low he got, until reading that. now i understand the depths of hatred that some people have for him, a little more.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2003/03/unpatriotic-conservatives-david-frum/

I will not inflict my debate thoughts on my Twitter followers. I will inflict them on National Review readers later. But I want to say this here: When Bernie said he'd raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, I heard Bill Buckley in my head: "Why not $16?"

— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) January 15, 2020

Oh, hell, y'all, I think I'm finna tweet. Here comes a barrage. Please mute, if unwanted!

— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) January 15, 2020

disgusting

Michelle Malkin claims “questioning the numbers of the Holocaust” isn’t antisemitic and neither is questioning the ״dual loyalties״ of “foreign agents”🧐

You read that right...pic.twitter.com/kHmIMQsZ0T

— Adam Milstein (@AdamMilstein) March 2, 2020

I wish I didn’t have to see that disastrously hateful fun fact in multiple threads

NRO isn't as delightful as it once was.

we should start another thread focused on making fun of tradcaths specifically

sorry silby, didn't realize it was already posted somewhere, and yeah she's fucking awful

uhhhh....Jonah mostly otm?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-crisis-donald-trump-impeachment-no-excuse-slow-response/#slide-1

Jonah wets his finger and holds it out to see which way the house on fire with many more flammable parts yet to come is blowing.

I’d like to meet a real deal Jonah stan in the flesh in 2020. what’s *that* person like?

Loool my phone tried to autocorrect “person” to pedo

Y'all are bein' too harsh on the boss.

I don’t see any good reason for the Times to edit the president’s remarks to obscure the facts that he was reporting a conversation he had with an expert about testing, and that he indicated medical doctors would have to approve any actual treatments by injection. The only rational reason is that the paper has a political agenda to portray Trump as urging lethally dangerous self-experimentation on the public.

It is foolish for the president to speak publicly this way. Why can’t the media just report that? Their credibility is in tatters because they can’t leave foolish alone — it’s Trump, so foolish has to be distorted into monstrous.

Andrew McCarthy cheerfully admits we have a fool for a chief executive, but he decries the fact that the NYT took a somewhat different tack on his idiocy and this means "their credibility is in tatters", while he carefully avoids further elaborating on the primary fact that we are governed by an fool.

as ever, you've nailed it

there it is

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZDFuN5U8AA1Q6N?format=jpg&name=small

The hypocrisy of Democratic officials who enthusiastically backed mass protests even as they continued to ban larger outdoor gatherings for religious services has been outrageous.

But, as Jim Geraghty points out in today’s Morning Jolt, hypocrisy doesn’t mean the virus has gone away. We thankfully have not seen large outbreaks attributed to the protests — perhaps yet another sign that the virus doesn’t spread easily outside, particularly in the summer when many people are wearing masks. Yet we know the risk persists, especially at larger indoor gatherings.

“Personally, I wouldn’t attend a large gathering right now, especially one indoors. Certainly things held indoors are less safe than things held outdoors,” President Trump’s former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb said this week.

Asked about President Trump’s upcoming rally in Tulsa, Okla., Dr. Anthony Fauci tells the Daily Beast that “outside is better than inside, no crowd is better than [a] crowd.”

Despite the warnings and some chatter earlier this week about moving the Tulsa rally outside, the president is pushing forward with the indoor rally on Saturday at an arena that can seat 19,000 people.

I have not seen a good argument that indoor rallies are worth the health risk — or the political risk.

In February, Biden led Trump by seven points among independent voters over the age of 65, according to a Quinnipiac poll. Biden’s lead among independent seniors has now grown to 20 points in Quinnipiac’s latest poll.

Among seniors overall, Trump trails Biden by ten points. In 2016, Trump beat Clinton by seven points among voters over the age of 65.

Older voters, the Americans most vulnerable in this pandemic, are the voters Trump needs to win back to win the election. How is the sight of an indoor arena packed with thousands of Trump fans — many of whom will be chanting and not wearing masks — going to reassure the voters Trump needs most?

How is the sight of an indoor arena packed with thousands of Trump fans — many of whom will be chanting and not wearing masks — going to reassure the voters Trump needs most?

Trump does not admit to needing anyone for anything and the more the media and his advisors try to persuade him that giant rallies full of his most fervent supporters, unmasked, packed together, and yelling full-throatedly in glee may backfire on him, the more determined he will be to publically demonstrate his disdain of such counsel. Even more than the NRO neo-cons, who notoriously dismissed the "reality-based community" prior to the Iraq War, Trump believes in creating whatever reality he prefers and acting as if no other version of reality matters.