The Sherrod Fiasco

There is no limit to the lengths Andrew Sullivan will go in defending and rationalizing the Obama administration. Sensible observers agree that the administration totally embarrassed itself and displayed a pathetic, knee-jerk cowardice when it forced Shirley Sherrod to resign. Of course it is right to blame the administration when it forces someone out of a job without giving them a chance to defend themselves. Does the President and the Secretary of Agriculture supposed to act in a responsible, lawful manner? How can you compare their responsibility with a blogger like Andrew Breitbart? Sullivan thinks that once again Obama is outsmarting his opponents, but didn't the administration just show how easily it is cowed into overreacting when some right-wing blog digs up an embarrassing video clip? In fact many conservatives attacked Breitbart and opined that he owed Sherrod an apology. In addition, Fox News showed admirable restraint in covering the story and has been defended by both the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun.

Sullivan also credits Obama with avoiding a "second Great Depression." In fact, all he did was continue the bailout policy of his predecessor which is just postponing the day of reckoning. We are still in a situation where there is an overwhelming amount of debt and now the Fed has run out of ammunition since they can't lower rates any more. Europe is teetering on the brink of a collapse. Japan's debt is twice the size of its economy. China is in a huge bubble that could burst at any time. Nothing Obama has done will remotely do anything to prevent the economic problems ahead. I think some of things he's done like health care reform will make it worse. The financial reform act is probably too watered down to do any good. The reason Obama's poll numbers are low is because people know we are still in a lot of trouble and realize he has not done anything to really fix any of the problems.

NYT and the Commerce Clause

The New York Times' editorial on the commerce clause offer no legal reasoning to support the commerce clause. Basically, they say that a lot of great laws that are beneficial to society are based on the commerce clause so we can't ever limit it. Why have a constitution? If laws are beneficial, forget about whether the government is empowered to pass them. In one example, cited by the Times, Elena Kagan as Solicitor General argued that confining sex offenders after their sentence has run could be justified by the Commerce Clause. Whatever the merits of keeping sex offenders behind bars, what does it have to do with commerce? Stretching the meanings of words so far that they lose all meaning makes having a constitution meaningless.

Ominous Signs

Its hard to be optimistic when there are articles like this which says that banks around the world will have to pay back trillions of dollars in loans in the next two years. Also, in his column, Paul Krugman talks about the probability of coming deflation. I think his analysis is correct, although I don't think his prescribed solution of more stimulus will work. Yet the Times also reports that Wall is hiring in anticipation of a recovery. Its hard to see how any recovery is possible.

Michael Steele and Afghanistan

I'm sympathetic to the views expressed by Michael Steele. I think we are wasting lives and resources by our continued involvement in Afghanistan. However, as RNC chairman, he should express views like this which are clearly at odds with most of the party. He would probably be better off in a different position or as an independent commentator.