Tuesday Tabs and Takes
Some stories and passing comments.
- Via NPR: A publisher abruptly recalled the “2,000 Mules” election denial book. NPR got a copy. Apparently, the publisher is worried about being sued.
- Dueling internal polls in the Utah Senate race via KSL: Two internal polls from Lee and McMullin camps tell different stories about Utah’s senate race.
- Sticking to the same Senate race, this is just a typical Jennifer Rubin piece from WaPo wherein she engages more in wish-casting than solid analysis: Evan McMullin is showing how to fight rabid Trump sycophancy. Not only it is a significant long shot for McMullin to win, the notion that what he is doing in some kind of blueprint is simply incorrect. (I first noticed Rubin when she was all in for Romney back in the day and have noticed that whatever she is writing about she is always all in even if the surrounding evidence for her position is weak).
- Ends up the abortion issue isn’t so simple. Via CNN: Once a ‘quintessential pro-life Texan,’ she had to flee her home state to get an abortion.
- Via the NYT: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59 Million to a Local Bakery. What strikes me here is that this will be a right-wing talking point for the next decade or more because the story is about Oberlin. But I will say that what Oberlin isn’t, despite the way it is often talked about, is some representative sample of higher education.
- Via the WaPo: An ex-professor spreads election myths across the U.S., one town at a time. What is striking about this story to me is two-fold. First is the utter delusion this fellow is operating under (not to mention the notion of throwing away a tenure-track job at a good school to go on some weird barnstorming tour). The second is that tragedy that he has an audience.
“I don’t think he understands what he’s talking about most of the time,” said Greenhalgh. “He takes things and extrapolates them to a place that comes completely out of thin air. It sounds good and people believe it because it sounds authoritative if you don’t know much.”
- Ruth Marcus, writing in WaPo, also comments on the Chief Justice Robert’s speech that I wrote about this weekend: What Chief Justice Roberts misses. I thought this quote was worth highlighting:
Specifically, Kagan said, acting like a court means respecting precedent, applying judicial methodologies consistently and irrespective of outcome, and not lunging to make decisions more far-reaching than the pending case requires. “People are rightly suspicious if one justice leaves the court or dies and another justice takes his or her place and all of a sudden the law changes on you,” she said. “That doesn’t seem like law.”