What, me worry? After all the "typical" voter doesn't read George Will.
Posted on 04/28/2008 4:23:39 PM PDT by The_Republican
Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?
• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue—matter?
• You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?
• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
I haven’t trusted George Will since he helped Clinton win over George Bush. And I never will.
My favorite:
Telling young people “don’t go into corporate America,” your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in “the helping industry,” not “the moneymaking industry.” Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?
When asked how she was appointed to the board of directors of Treehouse Foods, Michelle explained that she had put out the word that she wanted to obtain some "corporate management experience." Why would she want to do that if she thinks corporate America should be shunned?
I think she actually adores corporate America because only it can satisfy her apparent love of money. She just toes the populist line on the campaign trail. What she says there is straight out of the Alinksy handbook. Same for Barack.
This are exactly the kind of comments one would expect from an ignorant kid. Obama reminds me of a pile of substandard dirt in many ways.
It's only about the feeeeeewings...
To think that this upstart Junior senator thinks he's got what it takes to lead the US is sick IMO.
Will does a nice job of kicking Michelle’s butt over the moon.
Ooooo. The Magic Mulatto will not like these questions.
I concur. If this article were a movie, I’d be giving it 5 stars.
Wonderful article in its entirety.
“To think that this upstart Junior senator thinks he’s got what it takes to lead the US is sick IMO.”
What is sicker is that there are a hell of a lot of American voters who want to give him just that opportunity.
Now can we ask Hillary a few questions?
That's gonna leave a mark!
Quite interesting, however I don't recall what Will might have done.
Did Will write some pro-Clinton (or anti-GHWB) pieces?
Somebody needs to explain that “empathy” is not sympathy on steroids, and used more or less interchangeably as today.
As a male, my sex precludes me from ever having empathy with a pregnant female. Empathy only comes from those who have experienced the same thing.
Will makes good logical, common sense points, but what do the candidates know about business? No, better to demagogue the issue, stir up class envies, and gut one of the few remaining bright spots - the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
Remember facts don’t matter, results don’t matter, far better to “feel” and have good intentions. I’m not so sure about the intentions part either.
A word to the wise. Don’t waste your time reading that famous former conservative sell-out George Will. He is simply not to be trusted.
Fax those questions over to Bill Moyers and he’ll get right on it.
Sorry, folks, but George Will misses the most relevant and important question to be posed to Senator Obama:
Sir, in light of Reverend Wright’s recent remarks, do you disavow or approve of the teachings of Black Liberation Theology? And if you disavow it now, why did you choose to have your children baptized in that church and taught these ideas from the pulpit?
I’d love to see Obama’s response to that question.
To address Exxon's profits by looking ONLY at the aggregate profit number is absolutely ridiculous. What about the size and scale of the company?
Would he feel better if Exxon was broken up into 20 companies (so you could then divide their total profit number by 20)?
Obama's ignorance on economic matters is astounding.
I suspect that the one is coming after McCain.
This is pretty much the motif operandi of the liberal judges, forget the law, go with your feewings...
I've already read your link to RealClimate as well as a few other blogs that critique both the original paper and the RealClimate analysis.
The answer to your question is that only a peer reviewed paper in a legitimate technical journal will carry any weight with the the scientific community. That's just the way it is. This is a highly controversial topic and potentially very damaging to the the GW advocates position. There is no doubt that this is recognized by the GW community on both sides of the issue. So a failure by the advocates to publish a paper contradicting Douglass et al is very telling.
It is noteworthy also that the author of the RealClimate analysis is "group". Who is group? Why won't they sign their names to their own work? Why don't they publish their analysis? It seems to me that these are pretty important questions.
Personally I don't find the RealClimate critique nearly as persuasive as the Douglass paper and the critique has been picked apart pretty thoroughly by Cristy and others.
Ignore the above - posted to the wrong thread. Sorry about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.