Our (arbitrary) inclusion rule forces us to bid goodbye (once again) to Newt Gingrich this week; he's down to a 3.7% probability at Intrade.
He could be back, though. Because, whatever his flaws, his first name is not "Mitt".
|Query String||Hit Count||Change Since
|"Barack Obama" phony||184,000,000||+9,000,000|
|"Rick Santorum" phony||62,400,000||+49,400,000|
|"Mitt Romney" phony||1,510,000||-4,650,000|
|"Gary Johnson" phony||1,130,000||-30,000|
At Reason, Jacob
Sullum pointed out the sheer phoniness of President Obama's
promised "accommodation" for religious organizations
who would prefer not to pay for "health care" they consider to
By exempting churches from the birth control mandate, Obama concedes their religious freedom is at stake. But he arbitrarily denies that freedom to church-affiliated organizations. Although he acknowledges "many genuine concerns" about the mandate, he isn't willing to address them in a genuine way.Sullum is dismayed by the mainstream media who "reported the administration's spin as fact."
More generally: Obamacare isn't just a war on religious liberty, it's a war on liberty in general. And Obama can't allow conscientious objectors.
Hennessey notes a problem with President Obama's campaign-speech
demand that "Congress needs to make the Buffett Rule a reality."
And right now! According to the Prez, it's one of the "things we can do
The "Buffett Rule" is a mandate that "millionaires" pay at least 30% of their incomes in taxes. Only problem is, as Hennessey points out, Obama's proposal is "vaporware"; the Administration hasn't actually proposed any legislation that would implement the Buffett Rule.
But my guess is that it plays well with focus groups as a campaign issue. And running against Congress probably does too.
President Obama continually demonstrates his contempt for the intelligence of the electorate. But can he really get away with saying "I demand that Congress act immediately on legislation that I haven't actually proposed myself"? Hey, maybe!
There was also Obama-action on the corporate tax front this week,
and it was (predictably) phony. Peter
Suderman's headline about the proposal deserves quoting in full:
Obama Administration Proposes Corporate Tax Overhaul Based on Theory That Loopholes Are Bad and Should Be Replaced With Different LoopholesAfter examining the details, Suderman sums up the Orwellian reality:
So the Obama administration's proposal to reform the corporate tax code is a tax cut that will probably result in a net tax hike, and a tax simplification that will include the creation of new loopholes.
President Obama, using the p-word in 2012:
It's the easiest thing in the world (to) make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices.Senator Obama, 2008, making phony election-year promises about lower gas prices:
Proposed Obama campaign slogan: "Because You'll Believe Anything"