Chief Justice Roberts Sided With Court's Progressives to Upheld Constitutionality of ObamaCare

I'm not surprised by today's ruling. I noted previously (somewhere around here) that the Court's decision on Arizona's SB 1070 was a warning against premature football-spiking. Chief Justice John Roberts, I suspect, is being extremely careful about preserving the institutional legitimacy of the Court --- and by extension, the legacy of "the natural court" under his leadership.

There's going to be a lot of news all day, so check back here for updates on developments. I'm just trying to digest all of the information and I'm actually trying to listen to some of the speeches. Here's President Obama's reaction:

Check the New York Times, "Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand," and the Los Angeles Times, "Chief justice leads Supreme Court's support of healthcare law." (Via Memeorandum.)

Ann Althouse has an analysis of the ruling: "Chief Justice Roberts writes an opinion limiting the commerce power and the spending power." And see Lyle Denniston, at SCOTUS Blog, "Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax (UPDATED)." And see the ruling plus related documents here: "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius."

Finally, Neal Munro at the Daily Caller captures the essence of the decision, "In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court rules Obamacare constitutional": The individual mandate in Presid

ent Barack Obama’s health care reform law has been upheld, as a tax, in a 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four-vote bloc of progressive judges to uphold the sweeping law, after reinterpreting it as a tax-related law.

The majority opinion, authored by Roberts, said the federal government does not have the constitutional power to compel “individuals to become active in commerce… [so] the individual mandate cannot be sustained.”

But in a stunning move, Roberts reinterpreted the law, allowing it to stand, because he said the federal government has the constitutional authority to tax people — even though the law’s advocates originally denied it was a tax while pushing for its approval in 2010. The Obama administration later argued that it was a tax.

He and the four progressive judges upheld the far-reaching law as a tax law.

Roberts then said the court is not deciding whether the law is fair or wise.

“It is not our role to forbid it or comment on [the law’s] fairness,” said Robert’s decision, which was opposed by four GOP-nominated judges, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely considered the court’s swing vote.

RTWT.

And keep checking back here for updates and analysis, and other unrelated blogging, like babe blogging!

Super Tuesday Reinforces GOP Divide

At Wall Street Journal, "Republican Split Decision: Romney Had a Good Night but Santorum Has Cause to Fight On."

Republican elites are aching to declare this race over and take aim at Mr. Obama. The fear is that the intraparty debate is hurting the GOP brand and the image of the candidates. Some of that is inevitable in any primary campaign, but November is a long way off and the American public hasn't concluded that Mr. Obama deserves another term.

The hand-wringing is fruitless in any case. The voters are in charge and their split decision shows that Republicans still haven't settled on a standard-bearer.

See also John Avlon and Ben Jacobs, at The Daily Beast, "No Clear Path to Victory for Romney" (via Memeorandum).

Romney Gains Ground in Crucial Michigan GOP Primary

Mitt Romney really can't lose Michigan. He grew up there, a favorite son, and a loss would demonstrate just how badly his claim to inevitability has collapsed.

At Public Policy Polling, "Michigan GOP race tightens" (via Memeorandum).

Also at The Hill, "Slouching toward nomination, Romney needs win in Michigan" (via Memeorandum).

Rick Perry Slams Obama Administration's Response to Marines Pissing on Dead Taliban

Well, maybe Perry can expand on this during Monday's presidential debate. What a chance to call out the progressive left for its epic America-bashing and hypocrisy.

At Los Angeles Times, "Rick Perry: Marines who urinated on dead bodies are 'kids'." And at USA Today, "Perry slams Obama team's response to Marines video."

Sarah Palin: Occupy Wall Street Wants Bailout (VIDEO)

At Weasel Zippers, "Palin Slams “Entitled” Occupy Wall Street Protesters…"

Hypocritical Occupy Oakland Supporters Denounce Anarchy and Violence of Occupy Oakland Protesters

Only an idiot is going give these freaks the time of day:

As longtime readers will recall, I've been following the Occupy Movement for a couple of years. The movement's ideological foundations are in anarcho-socialism and revolutionary violence. A guiding credo is common (socialist) property rights enforced by direct action. See this week's "Declaration of Solidarity with Neighborhood Reclamations," for example:

Occupy Oakland, in solidarity with the Occupy movement and with the local community, has established the principle of claiming for open use the open space that has been kept from us. We are committed to helping this practice continue and grow. Here in Oakland, thousands of buildings owned by city, banks, and corporations stand idle and abandoned. At the same time social services such as child and healthcare, education, libraries and community spaces are being defunded and eliminated.

Occupy Oakland supports the efforts of people in all Oakland neighborhoods to reclaim abandoned properties for use to meet their own immediate needs...

Underneath these demands is an ideological agenda of militant anti-capitalism, for example, yesterday's "Communique from the Crisis Center":

Tonight we open the Crisis Center. In this abandoned building that once provided services to those in need, we open the Occupation Crisis Center. Capitalism cannot avoid crisis. Capitalism cannot resist crisis. But capitalism is not the crisis. We are the crisis. Capitalism is not hungry, homeless, jobless, excluded, exploited. We are. And across the globe, across the nation, across borders, across Oakland, we are moving to meet our immediate needs. We are reclaiming space that has been unused, used against us, left empty while we sleep outdoors, while we cook and organize and struggle outdoors. We open this building in this moment of crisis — in our moment — to continue our occupations, continue our struggles, to seize this crisis and make of it a new world in which everything belongs to everybody...

And here's this on the downtown rioting and violence, "Statement on the Occupation of the former Traveler's Aid Society at 520 16th Street":

We are well aware that such an action is illegal, just as it is illegal to camp, cook, and live in Oscar Grant Plaza as we have done. We are aware that property law means that what we did last night counts as trespassing, if not burglary. Still, the ferocity of the police response surprised us. Once again, they mobilized hundreds of police officers, armed to the hilt with bean bag guns, tear gas and flashbang grenades, despite the fact that these so-called “less-than-lethal” weapons nearly killed someone last week. The city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect one landlord's right to earn a few thousand every month. Why is this? Whereas the blockade of the port – an action which caused millions of dollars of losses – met with no resistance, the attempt to take one single building, a building that was unused, met with the most brutal and swift response.

The answer: they fear this logical next step from the movement more than anything else. They fear it because they know how much appeal it will have. All across the US thousands upon thousands of commercial and residential spaces sit empty while more and more people are forced to sleep in the streets, or driven deep into poverty while trying to pay their rent despite unemployment or poverty wages. We understand that capitalism is a system that has no care for human needs. It is a system which produces hundreds of thousands of empty houses at the same time as it produces hundreds of thousands of homeless people. The police are the line between these people and these houses. They say: you can stay in your rat-infested park. You can camp out here as long as we want. But the moment that you threaten property rights, we will come at you with everything we have...

And even more, see "Open Letter From Anarchist Participant in Oakland Strike":

After the successful national day of action and general strike in Oakland, naturally, we see the topic of violence and non-violence growing within our movement and within the voices of corporate media networks. Obviously this is a result of certain actions that individuals and groups within the movement decided to partake in. Unfortunately we are hearing a great deal of slander, and nonsense at the forefront of this discussion. As someone who has been with the occupation as much as possible, I feel it's necessary to confront this.

Isolating people based on their willingness to engage in self-defense by actively protecting the spaces we’ve all worked so hard to build together, and the symbolic defiance of exploitative property by making absurd claims of them being “Outside agitators” as if it they are some how separate from the many people who have been actively involved in building these spaces of 'direct-democracy' and communal living should not only be considered an attack on solidarity, but an attack on movements of the people. What divides movements of the people, weakens movements of the people.

Many of us out there today and tonight were Anarchists, but many were also not. We are the ones who were in the streets, ready to provide support & solidarity with all of our brothers and sisters. We were ready to brave against the violence of the state arm and arm with you, to protect one another, and provide medic support to anyone who fell victim to the police assaults. We are the ones whom also involved themselves with serving food to the commune, providing sanitation, organizing actions and broadening the movement. We are not separate from the movement. We are not outside agitators. We are a part of the movement, we are involved with the struggle. We stood with the occupation before day one, we stood with the occupation tonight and will continue to do the same in the future. Don’t let age old divide and conquer tactics convince you otherwise, please...

These are not new sentiments. When Adbusters began agitating for the occupation of Wall Street, the publishers there were familiar with the anarchist roots of the movement. This is what "occupation" means. The movement is about exploiting the current "contradictions of capitalism" (foreclosures, recession, unemployment) to propel the revolutionary moment. And so please disregard stupid editorials and blog posts like these linked below, for such lamebrains are trying to glom onto a movement they either don't understand or are willingly attempting to disguise: "Occupy Oakland Vandals are Nothing But Overgrown Overage Adolescents," and "Oakland Not On Fire, Fox News Lies Re: Occupy Oakland."

Mostly, though, I think there's just a mass stupidity on the left among those who've identified with a movement that's fundamentally about radical, violent change. It's a sign of how bankrupt is progressive politics in this country. From Michael Moore to Keith Olberman to President Obama, the left is scratching desperately for anything to take attention away from the Democrat failures of the last three years. The anarchists have long pushed for violence and bloodshed and the new order. They are having their day, and their enablers and useful idiots now decrying the very violence they ignorantly have signed on to support. It all proves, altogether, the ideological and intellectual hollow core of the movement.

Occupy Oklahoma Protester Found Dead

At News 9 Oklahoma City, "Occupy OKC Protester Found Dead In Tent In Downtown OKC."

And a WaPo, "Man found dead in tent during Occupy Okla. City protest; police say death not suspicious."

Verum Serum has video: "Man Found Dead at Occupy OKC (Video added)." And at Occupy OKC on Twitter.

Virginia GOP Says Halloween-Themed E-Mail Over the Top

I wondered why I was getting a lot of hits yesterday to this post.

See Los Angeles Times:

Virginia Republicans were in apology mode Monday over a Halloween-themed email that depicted a zombie-like President Obama with what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the head.

The northern Virginia-based Too Conservative blog first flagged the mailer from the local Republicans in Loudon County promoting a local holiday parade. It also offers a ghoulish caricature of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi D-San Francisco).

"I am no fan of Barack Obama, but putting up a photo of him as a zombie with a bullet hole in his head?" the blog stated. "Someone should send this to the US Secret Service."

Well, I'd say the Democrats' reaction was over the top.

More at Bret Baier, "Grapevine: Halloween Trick for Virginia Republicans."

We Should Not be Surprised by the Left's Racist Hit Job on Herman Cain

Rush Limbaugh (via Memeorandum):

This story appears to me to be a close relative of the hit job that the Washington Post is doing on Marco Rubio. It's not a news story. This is gutter partisan politics, and it's the politics of minority conservative personal destruction, is what you've got here. Rubio and Cain unfit to lead, don't you see. We cannot have a black Republican running for the office of president. We can't have one elected. We can't have an Hispanic. The left owns those two groups, and those two groups are gonna forever be minorities. Those groups cannot ever be seen to be self-sufficient or rising above, on their own. Those two groups are owned -- lock, stock, and barrel -- by the Democrat Party and anything good that happens to any black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. "If it happens elsewhere, we're gonna destroy those people -- a la Clarence Thomas."

Arrests at Occupy Denver

The New York Times has a report, "Occupy Protesters Regroup After Mass Arrests."

On Saturday, for the third consecutive night, dozens of demonstrators defied the curfew and inhabited the site, chanting and waving signs and huddling for warmth in the 40-degree weather. The police made no new arrests overnight.

In Denver, most of the arrests on Saturday were over a police rule prohibiting structures, including tents, from being erected in public parks. Some accounts said that tensions escalated when the protesters climbed the State Capitol’s steps during a march by as many as 2,000 people. No public demonstrations are allowed on the steps without a permit.

But a media liaison with Occupy Denver, Jeannie Hartley, said on Sunday that the protesters had never made it to the steps, which were blocked off.

Most of the 20 arrests, a police spokesman said, were made when officers moved to keep people from erecting tents across the street from the Capitol at Civic Center Park. Several videos showed the police using pepper spray. Two protesters were arrested and charged with felony assault on a police officer after officials said he was knocked off his motorcycle, and other officers were kicked, said the spokesman, Lt. Matt Murray.

Lieutenant Murray said that the police requested reinforcements after the officer was knocked off his motorcycle and that the enlarged force then moved into the park where most of the arrests were made.

One video posted on the Occupy Denver Facebook page also clearly showed tension and conflict within the protesters’ ranks. At one point, a man, shouting in anger, is seen being pushed from the crowd to confront the officers, who are lined up with shields and batons.

“I will fight back!” he screamed as other protesters pulled him back. One demonstrator, who had pushed to the front, confronted the man: “We are nonviolent — do not instigate that!”

“They hit me!” the first man shouted.

“Yeah, and they’re going to keep hitting you!” the other said.

“They don’t have a right!”

More at American Glob, "Democrats Are Going To Regret Their Support For #Occupywallstreet," and Marooned in Marin, "#OWS Weekend Insanity In Denver, Orange County CA & Elsewhere."

With Weak Economy, Obama May Lose Key Demographic Groups

See LAT, "Obama's demographic support may not weather economy."

Actually, blacks are still enthusiastic about the president. See NYT, "Black Voters’ Support for Obama Is Steady and Strong." But check the graphic at LAT, "Key States for Obama's Reelection." White voters in Florida, Ohio and Nevada will be especially crucial, and Latinos as well, who aren't going to be as wedded to the Democrats as black voters. Colorado and New Mexico will be problematic as well, despite higher levels of college educated whites. Perhaps that's why Obama continues to ramp up the class warfare rhetoric. Polls show a lot of sympathy with the occupy movement. No doubt the White House hopes the protesters don't start turning on him, mentioning that he's in the pocket of these same big banks and Wall Street brokerages. See Weasel Zip, "Obama Uses Occupy Wall Street’s Language, Rails Against “The Top 1%”…"

How Taxes Destroy Liberty

It's not just taxes per se, but the increasing scope of government power to redistibute income for economic and social engineering.

Read this essay, from Myron Magnet, at City Journal, "On Tyranny and Liberty."

Brown Risks Backlash on Pensions

This is one case where fiscal reality trumps destructive progressive ideology. Pigs will fly if he actually gets this through the legislature.

At Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown risks backlash on pension plan":

Reporting from Sacramento -- Gov. Jerry Brown proposed a sweeping overhaul of California pensions that would require public employees to pay more for their retirement and cut benefits for those hired in the future, setting the stage for a fierce battle with fellow Democrats and some of his main political supporters: unions representing government workers.

Brown's 12-point plan, announced Thursday, would require that all public workers have at least half the cost of their pensions deducted from their paychecks. Most state employees already make that contribution, but many in cities, counties and school districts across the state pitch in far less.

The governor also wants future employees to receive up to a third of their retirement income from a 401(k)-style plan rather than a traditional guaranteed pension. And he urged that the retirement age for most new public workers be raised from 55 to 67.

"I try to protect working people whenever I can," said Brown, 73, "but I'm also responsible to the taxpayer and making sure we have a solvent state government."

California's public pension system has been strained by ballooning obligations to current and future retirees. Brown, who says he does not draw a pension, has called the system unaffordable and unsustainable. He wants to cut the state's long-term pension needs in half.

His plan would have to pass the Legislature, which is dominated by Democrats whose close political allies include labor unions. Brown would need the approval of two-thirds of state lawmakers to place key parts of it on the November 2012 ballot for voters to consider.

Four Reasons Keynesians Keep Getting It Wrong

From Allan Meltzer, at Wall Street Journal:

Those who heaped high praise on Keynesian policies have grown silent as government spending has failed to bring an economic recovery. Except for a few diehards who want still more government spending, and those who make the unverifiable claim that the economy would have collapsed without it, most now recognize that more than a trillion dollars of spending by the Bush and Obama administrations has left the economy in a slump and unemployment hovering above 9%.

Why is the economic response to increased government spending so different from the response predicted by Keynesian models? What is missing from the models that makes their forecasts so inaccurate? Those should be the questions asked by both proponents and opponents of more government spending. Allow me to suggest four major omissions from Keynesian models...

RTWT.

Occupy Wall Street: The Enemy Within

See Discover the Networks, "Occupy Wall Street":

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a movement whose activism is planned and coordinated via a free, open-source social-networking website that is maintained by an independent group of organizers who describe themselves as “committed to doing technical support work for resistance movements.” Strongly anti-capitalist, OWS characterizes America as a “ruthless,” materialistic society where the chief objective is to “always minimize costs and maximize profits”; where “lives are commodities to be bought and sold on the open market”; and where “the economic transaction has become the dominant way of relating to the culture and artifacts of human civilization.” The “deep spiritual sickness” that necessarily results from this repugnant philosophy of perpetual economic "growth for the sake of growth," says OWS, has caused “vast deprivation, oppression and despoliation ... to cover the world.” OWS's prescribed remedy is to replace the foregoing arrangement “with a society of cooperation and community” – i.e., a socialist economy....

Front groups of the community organization ACORN played a major role in organizing the OWS protests nationwide. For instance, the Working Families Party (WFP), a longtime ACORN front, helped mobilize the demonstrations in New York City. "[We are] actually trying to change the capitalist system that we have today because it’s not working for any of us," WFP organizer Nelini Stamp told Laura Flanders of Free Speech TV in an interview.

Meanwhile, ACORN’s newer front groups were likewise deeply involved in launching and expanding the OWS movement throughout the fall of 2011. For instance, New York Communities for Change -- led by longtime ACORN lobbyist Jon Kest -- helped WFP organize the demonstrations in lower Manhattan. In Pennsylvania, Action United participated in the "Occupy Pittsburgh" rallies. In Florida, Organize Now took part in "Occupy Orlando." The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment led the "Occupy L.A." protests. And New England United for Justice, headed by former ACORN national president Maude Hurd, participated in the related “Take Back Boston” rallies in Massachusetts.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was also heavily involved in OWS's formation and early growth. At the heart of "Occupy Los Angeles," for instance, were two Southern California communists -- veteran Party leader Arturo Cambron and his comrade Mario Brito. In early October 2011, Brito declared that OWS's chief objective was to achieve “economic justice,” and added: “This is an international movement ... The vast majority of Americans actually believe income inequality is a major problem. The only reason they haven’t acted upon it is because there hasn’t been a mass movement.” In an October 15, 2011 address to the nearly 3,000 attendees at an "Occupy Chicago" rally, John Bachtell, a spokesman from the CPUSA's national board, claimed to “bring greetings and solidarity from the Communist Party”; he received a number of loud ovations from the crowd.

The early OWS demonstrations imposed considerable monetary costs on the cities in which they were staged. By mid-October 2011, for example, the protesters' then-month-long siege of Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan had already cost New York taxpayers some $3.2 million for overtime police pay. Meanwhile, Boston City Council president Stephen Murphy reported that the costs resulting from the protests in his city were approaching $2 million.

Quite popular at OWS demonstrations across the United States are T-shirts and speeches glorifying such renowned Marxists as Che Guevara, Emiliano Zapata and Mao Zedong; lionizing convicted cop-killer Troy Davis and WikiLeaks collaborator Bradley Manning; promoting the DREAM Act and 9/11 Trutherism; and denouncing Fox News, the American Legislative Exchange Council, Wisconsin's Republican governor Scott Walker, the Koch family, the New York Police Department, and "Nazi Bankers" and Jews.

Indeed, anti-Semitism is clearly in evidence at many “Occupy” events nationwide, where placards and chanted slogans denouncing the alleged conspiracies of “Jewish bankers” (and "Zionist Jews") square neatly with OWS's relentless condemnations of “greedy Wall Street bankers” and thus go unchallenged by the protesting throngs. According to the American Nazi Party, which supports OWS, the movement strikes a welcome blow against an obscenely corrupt "Judeo-Capitalism."

Check the link for the full entry.

IMAGE CREDIT: Communist Lalo Alcaraz.

Protesting Outside People's Homes — Is This What Democracy Looks Like?

From Elizabeth Ames, at Fox News:

Protesting at people’s homes ... is not about asserting an opinion. It is a warning of potential violence. It implies, 'We’re outside your house because we're angry enough to hurt you unless you do what we want.'

But they're progressives, and thus purely virtuous.

Not.

Obama Gets a Lifeline on Reelection?

President Obama's toast in 2012, right?

I think he'll lose reelection, but my prediction is based on continued high unemployment and depressed presidential approval ratings. So it's interesting that Obama's getting some improvement on those measures today.

The New York Times has the report on the new third-quarter GDP numbers, "Economic Growth in U.S., Though Still Modest, Speeds Up." And Gallup has the latest approval numbers, which show some improvement in the president's standing, "Obama Job Approval Showing Modest Improvement, Now 43%."

On the economy, continued improvements in economic growth rates must translate into a decline in the unemployment rate. We're still at 9.1 percent nationally, and higher in key states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. (BLS data is here.) My hunch is that unemployment needs to come down to below 7 percent nationally by next summer, and perhaps to a similar degree in some of those key battleground states.

On public opinion, Charlie Cook's out with a new analysis, at National Journal, "Underwater":

With the 2012 presidential general election just a year away, it’s a good time to look at the national polling and talk about the state of play. Obviously, we have to make allowances for changing circumstances and unexpected events.

The best barometer of how a president is going to fare is his approval rating, which starts taking on predictive value about a year out. As each month goes by, the rating becomes a better indicator of the eventual results. Presidents with approval numbers above 48 to 50 percent in the Gallup Poll win reelection. Those with approval ratings below that level usually lose. If voters don’t approve of the job you are doing after four years in office, they usually don’t vote for you. Of course, a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the Electoral College. It happened to Samuel Tilden in 1876, Grover Cleveland in 1888, and Al Gore in 2000. But the popular votes and the Electoral College numbers usually come down on the same side.

In his 11th and most recent quarter in office (July 20-Oct. 19), President Obama averaged a 41 percent approval rating among registered voters, according to Gallup. His average for the month of September was the same. For the week of Oct. 17-23, the president’s approval was 41 percent with a disapproval rating of 51 percent. It’s worth noting that in the Oct. 17-23 aggregation of Gallup tracking, Obama’s job-approval rating among independents was only 38 percent. This was a group he carried by 8 percentage points over John McCain in 2008, 52 percent to 44 percent. Among “pure” independents, those who don’t lean toward either party when pushed, the president’s approval rating was 32 percent.

Focusing on the big picture and that target of 48 to 50 percent among the total electorate, if Obama is to win in 2012, he needs to raise his approval rating at least 7 to 9 points. (Obama got some good news on Wednesday when the CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 19-24, pegged his approval rating at 46 percent—closer to his target.)

Keep reading.

Well, Obama's up 2 points in the latest Gallup survey, so things are heading in the right direction. And as I reported yesterday, the president, while unpopular, performs better in head-to-head matchups in recent polls. So, Obambi's looking a little more competitive. But it still early and there's lots still to shake out between now and November 2012. And I'll be keeping an eye on things.

Down But Not Out: Investors and Home Buyers Returning to Inland Empire

From the front-page at yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "Inland Empire is showing early stirrings of recovery."

Few places have been as devastated by the Great Recession as the Inland Empire, a region of 4 million people encompassing Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Unemployment has tripled since 2006. Home values have plunged 56% in Riverside County and 60% in San Bernardino County. Nearly 12,500 foreclosure notices were filed in the three months that ended Sept. 30.

Yet amid the stillborn subdivisions, abandoned storefronts and crowded unemployment offices, there are early stirrings of recovery.

Well, praise be Obama! (Or Jerry Brown — our local Democrat messiah!)

We even had unemployment come down to 11.9 percent from 12.1 percent. Booming!

Romney's Guilty Republican Syndrome

From Kim Strassel, at WSJ:

As the GOP casts about for a response to Occupy Wall Street, at least one prominent Republican isn't sweating it. In the war over class, Mitt Romney is already waving a white flag. And therein lies one of his chief liabilities as a Republican nominee or president.

The Occupy masses don't have a unified message, though the Democrats embracing them aren't making that mistake. President Obama helpfully explained that the crowds in New York and elsewhere are simply expressing their "frustrations" at unequal American society. The answer to their protests is, conveniently, his own vision for the country. If wealthier Americans and corporations are just asked to pay their "fair share," if "we can go back to that then I think a lot of that anger, that frustration dissipates," said the president.

This is a campaign theme in the making, and one with which Mr. Obama has already had plenty of practice. Congressional Democrats, too, see the value of pivoting off Occupy Wall Street to build an election-year class-warfare argument.

Keep reading.

Romney's been playing some class warfare games of his own, apparently, hoping to nip Democrat attacks in the bud. Not working so well, it turns out:

Wall Street Did It?

Don't blame big banks for the flailing economy and housing crash, notes IBD:

... based on the number of toxic loans in the system in 2008, the government was responsible for not just a simple majority, but more than two-thirds. It's quantifiable — 71% to be exact (see chart). And the remaining 29% of private-label junk was mostly attributable to Countrywide Financial, which was under the heel of HUD and its "fair-lending" edicts.

Via Memeorandum and Verum Serum.

PHOTO CREDIT: That Mr. G Guy.