TW: I have posted previously on this Calabresi guy(http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/profile-in-stupidity-exhibit-steve.html). I find him so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous as to be funny. Politico has a forum, The Arena, where they invite alleged elite thinkers to comment on various topics. Most of the comments are the typical polemics of the left and right. But I go watch the Arena mainly to see what ridiculous gem Calabresi will provide, he rarely disappoints. His endorsement of McCain was very brief if predictable, listing no affirmative case for McCain, but blaming without basis the financial market crash on Obama and dismissing Obama's middle class tax cuts as welfare, nothing more nothing less.
But today he has really chafed my derriere. He pops up on the WSJ with a really scurrilous piece. WSJ featuring such drivel speaks to the vacuity of its editorial page. Calabresi starts the piece lamenting the passing of the good old days of Reagan federal judge appointments- folks like Scalia, Bork and Ken Starr (TW: I do not miss those days but that is just me). Then he veers off into gaga land.
I posted yesterday with Joe Klein's rebuttal of the Republican effort to baldly twist Obama's 2001 quote re the constitution and "income re-distribution" (http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/re-distributing-wealth.html). Obama's quote had nothing to do with supporting income re-distribution. Yet Calabresi grabs the quote again and twists it irresponsibly. This is a law professor who must know better but knowingly commits an intellectually dishonest act.
Then he degenerates into extrapolating to ridiculous extremes where Obama's judicial policies would take the U.S. Obama for some reason has not campaigned on the spurious extrapolations, no one during the primaries or general election has pressed him on the topics (not even Fox) but Calabresi with his omniscience sees them coming (but then Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate).
I comment on Calabresi to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of the WSJ and the hollowness of many (not all by any means) on the right who without sufficient affirmative reasons for supporting their nominees are now merely making stuff up.
From Calabresi/WSJ:
"...This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?...
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
TW: I have added another post by Cass Sunstein (guy whose Obama endorsement I posted yesterday, he is also an attorney), addressing in further detail the Obama 2001 interview.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/27/ridiculousness-about-redistribution-drudge-and-others.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment