Wait, David Frum? He’s that ‘no labels guy,’ right…?

Business as usual. Yes, they heard us. And yes, they got the message. They’re just choosing to ignore it, is all.

Does the model of human nature we embrace guide and shape everything else, from the economic system we prefer to the political system we support? Arthur C. Brooks and Peter Wehner seem to think so: The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes,

WSJ: A Virginia federal judge is expected to rule Monday on whether the Obama administration’s health law violates the Constitution, opening a new stage in the administration’s defense of its biggest legislative achievement. The ruling by District Judge Henry E. Hudson is perhaps the most significant so far among a slew of state-based legal challenges to the law, which also faces attack by newly resurgent Republicans in Congress. More than

Jonah Goldberg: Hater. At least, that’s what David Frum might label him, given Goldberg’s refusal to sign on to the “no labels” idea. Writes Goldberg: What no-labelers really mean is that they don’t like inconvenient disagreements that hinder their agenda. And that’s what is so troubling, indeed so undemocratic, about this claptrap. When they claim we need to put aside labels to do what’s right, what they are really saying

Sign the petition here. Since this deal was announced I’ve been arguing against it, noting that in the wake of a massive electoral victory spurred on by the Tea Partiers and their message of fiscal responsibility and accountability, it makes little sense to be happy with the status quo on most tax rates, a tax hike of 35% on certain estates upon death, and an additional $200-$300 billion in unfunded