The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “would serve as the model for my own nominees, if that responsibility falls to me,” highlighting the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the question of who should sit on the Supreme Court. Both justices have established strong conservative records since Bush appointed them, and the appointment of one more conservative to the nation’s highest court could tip the balance on issues such as abortion, discrimination, civil liberties and private property.

None of this is a surprise from the man who is becoming Bush lite. However, the article quotes ” a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center” and gives a fascinating look into the effectiveness of framing.

Edward Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the speech “very encouraging” and added: “McCain has drawn a clear line between his support for judicial restraint and Obama’s promise to appoint liberal judicial activists.”

Do you see what he did? There are two choices: liberal judicial activists and  justices who favor judicial restraint. No such thing as a “conservative judicial activist” who might make politically-inspired decisions about the issues. Even the wording is misleading-”support for judicial restraint.” What does that mean?
What that implies to me is that McCain is going to take all the powers Bush has appointed himself with and, as opposed to giving even a token nod to the balance of powers, will clothe himself in the robes of an imperial presidency.

I guess McCain is counting on the 28 percent of Americans who still manage to be willfully blind and/or stupid enough to support Bush.

Factory farming takes a big, hidden toll on human health and the environment, is undermining rural America’s economic stability and fails to provide the humane treatment of livestock increasingly demanded by American consumers, concludes an independent, 2 1/2 -year analysis that calls for major changes in the way corporate agriculture produces meat, milk and eggs.

The only problem with these “new” findings? I read about them way back in 2001, in Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, and more recently in Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Doesn’t it seem like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Charitable Trust (PDF link) could have saved 2 1/2 years of effort and money by simply endorsing one or both of these books? At the very least, I would think they owe the two authors some sort of acknowledgement for the work they’ve done in raising awareness with the general public.

In other news, the World Bank has said that “the grain required to fill a 25-gallon sport-utility vehicle tank with ethanol could feed one person for a year.” Yet Bush still insists on ethanol subsidies, in the face of world food shortages.

“In terms of the international situation, we are deeply concerned about food prices here at home, and we’re deeply concerned about people who don’t have food abroad,” Bush told a news conference.

He said the rise in food prices has been caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices, while only a small part is due to the production of corn-based ethanol.

“And the truth of the matter is, it’s in our national interest that we — our farmers — grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us.”

I’ve been planning a post about those questions, but before I could get to it,  Poliscope made a brilliant post this weekend that not only asked many of the questions that have been bugging me, but came up with more besides.

So, as I mentioned a few days ago, the establishment press has offered the following questions and/or observations on the outcome of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. . . . and the self-delusion is just astonishing.

1. What is Barack Obama’s problem with the “white working-class?” Why can’t he close the deal?

I would phrase the questions somewhat differently

1a. Why won’t “white working-class” voters support a black candidate whose views on the economy are more or less interchangeable with Hillary Clinton? What accounts for this 48 point gap in this demographic’s support for Clinton? If Hillary Clinton were running against, say, a white candidate with Obama’s views, would the gap be 48 percent?

1b. Why couldn’t Hillary close the deal back in February?

Don’t forget . . . this is a candidate who enjoyed an overwhelming financial advantage over all her competitors before the primary season started. Hillary also had the advantage in endorsements, campaign machinery and name-recognition. Once voters went to the polls, they voted for Obama over Clinton by consistently healthy amounts. Obama is the underdog in this race, not Hillary. But you wouldn’t know it from the coverage.

1c. Why won’t African-American voters support Hillary Clinton? Why won’t people most like Hillary Clinton — white, affluent and well-educated professionals — vote for her?

Go take a look at the county-by-county returns for all these “critical” states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. You’ll find that Obama is winning in blue counties and Hillary is finding votes in red counties. In other words, the Democratic base is voting for Obama in disproportionately high numbers and conservative, sometimes Republican, voters are voting for Hillary. Why?

His response to 1B is particularly enlightening. I read two national newspapers, several D.C.-based political sites and who knows how many blogs, and I had to actually think about that. Obama is the underdog? No, no, that’s not right! But Ivers has a point. What happened to the people who clamored about the “inevitability of Hillary“? Now the Huffington Post is saying DNC officials are considering offering Clinton a “consolation prize” of governorship of New York. That’s a pretty spectacular reversal.

Another excellent point is that conservatives are voting for Hillary. We’ve all heard that Rush Limbaugh has said he’ll campaign for Hillary should she win the nomination-because she’ll bring together the Republican party. For god’s sake, Ann Coulter said she’d campaign for Hillary should McCain win the nomination, and McCain has practically turned into Bush Jr. on the campaign trail.

There comes a point when you have to look beyond your own petty politics and examine the motives behind other people’s petty politics. Why do Limbaugh (who recently said he was “dreaming of riots” in Denver at the Democratic National Convention) and Coulter (who has said so many batshit things I couldn’t possibly choose just one) supporting Hillary? The running narrative is that they think she’s so divisive that whoever runs against her on the Republican ticket can’t help but win, but it might be worthwhile to attempt to look at her from their perspective. Maybe they see someone who flip-flopped on the war, who has a reputation (whether deserved or not) for being ruthless – who might, in other words, play just as dirty as they’ve been playing for the last eight years.