Essentially, McCaughey, a former NY Lieutenant Governor under George Pataki (and later, Democrat challenger for Governor), points out in her appearance with Mark Levin last evening that the laws are written in such a way that funds allocated are set up to be distributed at the state level to political activist groups, who are given the role of helping people navigate the new laws and, importantly, register them to vote.

When something is so broken and so perverse that it literally compresses of its own weight into a nugget of pure and perfect bureaucratic and political evil, should we really be protesting it? Or should we just look upon it with wonder and admiration, like a kind of high art?

Lucky for us, he’s delved deeply into our political history and plumbed the kinds of insights that perhaps we who live within the forest can’t see for the trees. Which I suppose is why he’s publicizing his book, The Unwinding, in the Guardian. For instance, Mr Packer tells us: America’s postwar responsibilities demanded co-operation between the two parties in Congress, and when the cold war waned, the co-operation was bound

Let me rephrase Mr Pethokoukis’s question for those operating in today’s post-Constitutional milieu: “Will Democrats (and certain very “progressive” Republicans) get away with buying votes by essentially stealing mortgage investment money that has always assumed to be secured — completely violating the spirit of eminent domain, even post-Kelo, and creating a 21st version of the all-encompassing Commerce Clause, while effectively moving toward the nationalization of mortgage lending?” And having re-phrased

Not sure if this was before or after he went and pandered to the Hispanic caucus, but I’m quite certain he’d already told a group of obstreperous Hobbits acting the thorn in his complacent, government-centric orange-ish side, to get their asses in line. And he did this without incident. Once again proving my theory that irony lightning is a myth. Like the Loch Ness Monster. And blue dog Democrats. Or