Regarding the stimulus, it was an absolutely enormous bill and passing it was at least a semi-impressive feat. One of the primary criticisms of the bill (from the left, which was able to produce coherent criticisms of the bill, as opposed to the right, who basically just screamed about Fannie Mae and government spending) was that the economy needed stimulus money NOW and the bill was severely back-loaded. In other words, a large majority of the stimulus money still hasn't been spent. A lot of the money will be injected into the economy slowly over the next 2 or 3 years. So there is still the possibility that the stimulus will work once we actually start spending the money.

Thus, you can't argue that Obama accomplished nothing by getting the bill passed because the bill hasn't accomplished enough yet. Wait until at least most of the money gets spent and then we can determine whether it had an effect on the economy. If the stimulus money helps the jobless rate go down and the rest of the economy keeps growing, Republicans are essentially dead in the water for 2012, all because of something Obama got passed within a couple months of taking office. And when health care reform gets passed (and some version of it will), he will have accomplished something that progressives have failed to do for decades.

And if it turns out that conservatives like Krauthammer are wrong about health reform, like they've been wrong about pretty much everything else this millenium, they will be easier to marginalize and harder to take seriously. The only people who will listen to them are those who made up their mind years ago and will not be swayed, like the trolls posting here about how smart Krauthammer is.

I would be interested in Krauthammer's opinions on end-of-life counseling, which a lot of his fellow conservatives like to call "death panels." People in the know report that encouraging end-of-life counseling would drastically reduce the amount of "defensive medicine" practiced by doctors in terminal cases. If he's against wasteful defensive medicine, he would be pretty inconsistent to be against death panels.

You're right on cue. See Glenn's response above to bichifi. And hey, it's a democracy, right? If the Afghan people want to be represented, at least in part, by the Taliban, that's their right.

Last I heard he's an evangelical Christian and strongly pro-life. But he's gonna work with the Obama administration on intelligence matters, so he must be a Democrat and a traitor to western values.

Between the people leaving the Republican party and the people the base wants kicked out, who is going to be left?

Are you aware that there are certain differences between "issue advocacy groups" like Planned Parenthood or NARAL, which are not profit-making ventures, and corporations? Do you think those differences might have something to do with the objections to allowing corporate influence in policymaking?

While we're playing word games, let's talk about the word you've used a few times, REVENUE, and the word you used not once, PROFIT. Do you know the difference between the two? Hint: It comes up in tax matters.

This is at least the second thing you've done this year that has caused me to feel some small amount of grudging, bitter respect for you. Go back to the days of 100% reprehensibility, I like my world 100% black and white.

Ugh, get over yourselves. You sound like a gay!*

* That's from Anchorman, so it's hilarious not offensive.

Seriously though, girls calling homophobic straight guys gay is never not funny.

You're a segregationist and a white populist. No matter what the topic of the article, that's what it comes down to. You have a right to share your opinions on those topics, but you shouldn't be surprised that you're treated like a fringe looney as a result. Outside of Buchanon and maybe Tancredo, nobody is willing to cop to these beliefs on the teevee, and you're clearly more extreme than both of them. Your beliefs are antiquated, unsupported by evidence, and looked upon with revulsion by most of the political spectrum, even those center-of-right. As a result, even when people read what you have to say, nobody familiar with you shtick can be bothered to respond to the substance. It doesn't warrant response.

You'd think someone whose beliefs are so marginalized in actual political debate would have a bit more sympathy for illegal immigrants and terrorists. After all, you're about as likely to influence policy as they are.

If you're too dense to see why a for-profit corporation's interests, which often necessarily run contrary to public interest and even the interests of its own employees (at least those not blessed with stock options) are different from those of a non-profit entity that relies on government funding and private donations to provide a public service, it's not worth wasting virtual breath arguing with you.

Given the Rule 11 sanctions Taitz got smacked with and the serious ethical concerns raised by this opinion, I think it's about time the CA bar reviewed whether Taitz should retain her license to practice. Mr. Keyes and the other plaintiffs might also consider a malpractice case. Seriously, this woman can't even make a filing deadline or serve adverse parties with process, let alone make a coherent argument to the court. She isn't fit to practice law.

Every one of these cases could be subject to discretionary dismissal as a political question. The fact that the judge even did a standing analysis shows he took pains to give Taitz the time of day.

BTW, birthers who are angry about the decision: thank your man Scalia for narrowing the standing doctrine in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. It used to be quite a bit more forgiving.