Long story short: Obama and his political masterminds Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have constructed, of their own volition, a massive wedge issue in which either the moderates will be offended, and so they'll lose, or their liberal base will be offended, and so they'll lose.

There is a price to pay with independents if a strong health care bill is passed. Democrats lead 37-30 with them in general on the generic ballot, but they say theyÂ’ll vote 44-37 for the GOP if a bill with a public option makes it through.

The lose-lose proposition, I think, helps the bill a little, because Democrats might take the position that If I'm going to be voted out of office anyway, I'm going to need the support of those liberal advocacy groups and George Soros to give me a nice job after I lose this one.

Meanwhile, a long-serving Blue Dog is retiring. (I mentioned last week that Charlie Cook had forecast long-serving Blue Dogs in Red States were in more trouble than the youngish, more centrist newcomers that won purplish districts in 2006-2008.)

n very much related and important news, a Blue Dog who’s held a red seat for the past 12 years has suddenly decided now might be a good time to retire. Quote: “Moore, who won his last race 56 to 40 percent over Jordan, was in trouble because of his support for many of President Barack Obama’s initiatives, including the stimulus package and health care reform.”

It's a vicious cycle for them and a virtuous one for us. As we look stronger, more top-tier name candidates step forward to claim what looks like low-hanging fruit. Meanwhile many of their entrenched incumbents begin to retire -- why bother? why not go out on a win? -- and the forbidding circumstances discourage many Democratic candidates who might otherwise run.

I am wondering if at some point a few of these Red State Blue Dogs don't float the idea to the RNC of a Reverse Specter: Let me run as a Republican, and keep the field clear for me, and I'll join your party and vote the way you like.

Posted by: Ace at 05:48 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 399 words, total size 2 kb.

Stupid new global warming scare-video that Dave in Texas sent.

He notes the climate freaks seem addicted to 9/11-ish imagery. First a hundred planes crashing into the WTC to illustrate the death toll at the (global warming caused, presumably) tsunami, now bodies falling from the sky past skyscrapers.

Bear bodies, yes. But still.

They keep trying to say, "Hey, have you ever noticed that what we're doing to the earth is exactly like what Al Qaeda did to us on 9/11? Except we do it every day?"

And the answer continues to be: No, I didn't notice that, nor did I notice it the other dozen times you've suggested it to me. The two things are nothing at all alike, and every time you say so, you're risking a punch in the chops.

Which part of the word "No" don't you understand? The "No" part, or the part where I key obscenities into your car?

From Michael's Comments

ALSO [DiT]: Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers

... peer review seems to serve three purposes. First, it rewards the hives that have the most successful data torturers. Second it singles out mutant hives for elimination. Third, it allows the Alpha Grantwriters to expense drinks.

tip via Andy over at H2 more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:57 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

"Now, if you want to go to Sarah Lawrence, you're going to have to know a few moves..."

Ah, yes. A bit of flirtatious play-lesbianism. Was super-hot in college. And, at age 50... well, still kind of hot, in that desperate "I don't want to die alone" sort of way, but you usually don't do it around your neices.

And then there's this pic:

Cougar? Why I barely even know 'er!

By the way, Nina Hartley just called, she wants her AVN-nominated performance in Ready, Willing, and Anal back. (And yeah, 1992 just called me, they want their dated jokes back.)

These pics are pretty old, actually -- from 2006, during the after-party celebrating Couric's elevation to CBS anchor, but they're just being circulated now.

Couple more at the link.

Charlie Gibson just emailed me to say "I have never seen that woman before in my life. And what is a woman?"

P-Shop: From old/dirty/b-tard.

Posted by: Ace at 02:58 PM | Comments (521)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

They already had a reason to fire him. Trouble was, they couldn't admit that reason:

Walpin was looking into charges that AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for him, washed his car, and took part in political
activities. In the course of investigating those allegations, the congressional report says, Walpin's investigators were told that [Obama ally and Sacramento Mayor Kevin] Johnson had made inappropriate advances toward three young women involved in the St. Hope program -- and that Johnson offered at least one of those young women money to keep quiet.

Johnson's office did not respond to calls for comment Friday morning.

At the time, Rhee [-- now Kevin Johnson's fiance! -- ] was on the board of St. Hope. A former St. Hope employee who reported one of the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Johnson told Walpin's investigators that Rhee "learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing 'damage control,'" the congressional report says.

The employee told investigators that Rhee told her that "she was making this her number one priority, and she would take care of the situation." A short time later, the employee learned that the girl who had complained about Johnson had received a visit from Johnson's personal attorney.

The congressional report quotes the girl as saying the attorney "basically asked me to keep quiet," and Johnson offered her $1,000 a month for the duration of her time with St. Hope. Once investigators learned about that, the report says, they had "reasonable suspicions about potential hush money payments and witness tampering at a federally funded entity."

Rhee did not respond to calls for comment Friday.

So there's your damned reason.

But that's not a legal reason. In fact... it's kind of illegal.

No problem for the Chicago gangster:

The new documents show the White House scrambling, in the days after the controversy erupted, to put together a public explanation for the firing. On June 11, less than 24 hours after Walpin received the call from Eisen, the board held a conference call. The next day, Ranit Schmelzer, who is part of the corporation's press office, sent an email to board members giving them talking points to use if contacted by reporters seeking information about the matter.

"Indicate that you support the president's decision to remove IG Walpin," was Schmelzer's first instruction to the board. Then: "If asked why he was removed, indicate that the president lost confidence in Mr. Walpin." And then: "If the reporter continues to press, say that you can't get into details on a personnel matter, but you understand there were some performance-based issues." Finally, Schmelzer advised the board to avoid "getting into any specifics about IG Walpin's performance-based issues. The WH has stayed away from this and has counseled us to do the same."

The next day, June 13, after having instructed board members that the correct answer was to express support for the firing, the White House, for the first time, solicited the members' actual views on the matter. In an email to the board headlined "Time-sensitive request from White House Counsel re IG matter," corporation general counsel Frank Trinity wrote, "I was just contacted by Elana Tyrangiel, Associate Counsel to the President, seeking your assistance in responding to questions from members of Congress about President Obama's removal of Gerald Walpin as inspector general. Specifically, the White House Counsel's office would like to compile statements from board members and CNCS staff who were present at the inspector general's presentation to the board immediately before the public board meeting last month." Trinity said each member would receive a call from White House lawyer Tyrangiel, who "will prepare statements for your review for accuracy."

The mention of Walpin's "presentation to the board" was a reference to a May 20 board meeting that played a key part in the White House's evolving explanations for Walpin's firing. After initially explaining that President Obama no longer had the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, the White House later changed its story to say that Walpin, who was 77 years old at the time, had become "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the May 20 meeting. Later, the White House cited other "performance-based" issues. But Republican investigators concluded that the key motive behind the firing was unhappiness with Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California who is a prominent political ally of President Obama.

Obama's buddy used AmeriCorps funds to pay hush-money to young girls he'd either propositioned or had sex with.

And because Walpin wanted to investigate that, rather than cover it up, he was deemed "senile."

Posted by: Ace at 02:41 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

In t the computer code for these models, the comments to the code acknowledge that changes have been made... in order to hide the decline.

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

And:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;

As George Takei says: "Oh my."

Soooo... we have emails stating that CRU "scientists" are using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. The "decline" here refers to a drop in temperates at the end of their simulations, which they don't want in on their hockey-stick graphs, because they always want them to end with the temperature curve pointing upwards -- asymptotically is best.

They have learned the "trick" (which I don't get myself) of adding in a specific series of data -- the real temperature record, but only through 1960 -- to a model based entirely on proxy temperature readings (tree rings and ice cores and so on) and adjusted real-world temperature readings. This data shouldn't be added in -- they've already got their adjusted (i.e., also kinda faked) temperature readings in there. They are adding this one piece of data again, this time in raw form, because it changes how the graph looks at the end, and gives them that sharply-rising flare at the chart's end.

Why not use all real temperature data, through the present day?

Because that doesn't result in the shape of the graph they want.

Why add real temperature data through 1960 in when you've already included "adjusted" versions of that data?

Because if you don't, you don't get the shape of the graph you want.

Why do they want a particular shape of graph? Because these charts aren't being used for science; they're being used for political propaganda. People understand what a sharply-rising line means.

Why are scientists choosing which data to add and not add according to what gives them the results they want?

Because they're not scientists. They are political advocates with some math and science degrees.

This data wasn't put in there because they decided for some odd reason that the real, raw temperature readings (but only through 1960!) should be re-added to the data set. It was put in there because someone did it one time and saw that it would give him the shape of the graph he wanted. And now they're all doing it, though no one is quite able to explain why the hell they are.

Because the real reason is "It gives us the prop we want." There is no other reason.

Aren't scientists supposed to build from observation to conclusion, rather than conclusion to observations? They are cherry-picking which data are supposed significant according to which sets result in the conclusions they've already decided.

Thanks to JackStraw.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (261)
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

Racism?

MSNBC's lineup:

Look at that. I haven't seen a line-up that white since they announced the nominees for the Country Music Awards' Fiddle-Solo of the Year.

I am beginning to get the idea that very often the left vindictively imposes "rules" on others that it itself ignores.

Fairness requires I point out that Andrea Mitchell has a black doorman, and Chris Matthews once sat in first-class within three seats of Snoop Dogg without showing outward signs of distress. Though he did order six scotches and kept checking to see if someone had boosted his Blackberry.

Posted by: Ace at 12:39 PM | Comments (119)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Damn. The drive to get up a quick, cheap post got me into trouble here.

Story posted below. Drew tells me that not only is this story three years old, but it's been debunked and retracted.

And you know what? Now I remember that. Five minutes ago? Nothing. Now? Face red.

Okay, so, in addition to using this to slam me for being stupid, let me promote this story out of the sidebar and on to the the main page. Captain "Sully" Sullenberger, you'll be glad to know, is getting regular sex from his wife -- "rock star sex," he says.

All it took to turn the pooter-tap was for a near-death-experience where his extreme grace under fire saved 300 lives which then catapulted him to worldwide celebrity and a likely movie-of-the-week bidding war.

So, guys: That's all it takes. So stop complaining.

(Oh, by the way, it went unreported, but Capt. Sully also got hit by a radioactive meteor that gave him the mystical power of having a dick the size of a Jart. So, again: There's the secret, easily achievable by most husbands, so shut up already, your wives just want you to take some initiative.)

Original errant post below the fold.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama called for another of his national security meetings tonight, it will the 9th on Afghanistan and McChrystal's troop request.

Now comes word this might be the night.

President Obama may make up his mind about sending more troops to Afghanistan as early as tonight, press secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Obama will meet with his foreign policy advisers tonight for a Afghanistan strategy meeting. When a reporter asked if Obama might "lock down" his decision tonight, Gibbs said it was possible.

"I don't know the answer to that. It may be tonight; it may be over the course of the next several days," he responded.

He may have already made up his mind and is meeting with the group to announce it to them.

If so, it would fit with what Lex is hearing about Marines getting the word deployments are being moved up and enlarged.

I can't wait to see what type of plan this reincarnation of King Solomon and George Patton comes up with.

A more cynical person than I (if such a person exists) might say that this is awfully interesting after the Senate vote on health care and even more importantly the unanimously negative reaction to his trip to Asia and his 'leadership' style.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:56 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

I depart from Michelle Malkin on this particular point.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to play the "gender card" as regards electability. Whether or not electability matters all that much, and whether someone's gender really has a big influence on electability, is a side question, which people can figure out for themselves.

But to merely make mention of it? That's dirty pool?

I don't think it is. Fiorina isn't exactly playing identity politics. She's not saying, as Sotomayor did, that she's better qualified due to her sex. Instead, she's saying that her sex might make her more appealing to female voters. That's not claiming superiority in the way we usually speak of it. She's saying that people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons -- being "just like me" being one of them -- and that this will be helpful.

Reality check: When Lynn Swann was running in Pennsylvania, I wasn't merely excited about his candidacy because he had a high name recognition and ability to scoop up donations. Or because I liked his platform. I didn't know what his platform was at the time and I still don't know. Part of the reason for excitement -- which I think most will admit, if only under duress -- was that he was black.

Yup. Because he was black. I certainly don't think his race would make him a superior governor than a white man. But certainly I thought that it would make him a better candidate than a white man, in the sense of having an advantage in getting some votes that most Republicans just don't. Not to mention -- be real, here -- any elected black Republican official is a huge PR point in the eternal Democratic advertising campaign to brand Republicans racist.

Republicans, I have to say, do this sort of thing all the time... they just don't like admitting it. J.C. Watts? Fine Representative. I like 'im. But, still and all, he sure seemed embraced by the base with an enthusiasm beyond what his record or abilities would demand. He was a good spokesman, but he was a particularly good spokesman... because he was black.

Alan Keyes? Well, no one talks too much about him anymore, because frankly he seems off his nut, but there was a time when conservatives endlessly praised him for how perfectly he articulated his message. I notice he was black, too, and I'm sure that many of his fans noticed that too.

Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell... good men, certainly, but let's be real, here: Part of the attraction of these candidates is their race.

So I don't get the upset over Fiorina. I am not closely following the DeVore-Fiorina contest. From what little I know of it, I presume DeVore is the more conservative candidate, and Fiorina the more moderate one. And that right there is certainly ample reason for conservatives to favor DeVore.

But it's certainly not dirty pool for Fiorina to note the conventional wisdom, that for some women voters, or for some moderates, a female candidate is more appealing. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it does, indeed, seem to be that way. (If you buy the conventional wisdom -- which you don't have to. But I don't see the sin in noting that conventional wisdom.)

And let me note: When Sarah Palin was attracting large swaths of previously-Obama-leaning women, no one objected and jumped up and down shouting "It's not right that women are now inclined to vote Republican just because Sarah Palin is a woman! I renounce these votes!"

If I remember right: We were all more than eager to accept those votes, even if they were cast for supposedly-bad reasons. In fact, I remember being positively giddy about that myself.

And this seems to me to very gentle play of the electability card, anyway.

"He is an honorable man," Fiorina said of DeVore. "He has every right to run. But he cannot beat Barbara Boxer."

She continued, "With all due respect and deep affection for white men -- I'm married to one -- but [Boxer] knows how to beat them. She's done it over and over and over."

Diana DeVore, Chuck's wife, responded on Twitter that, "Carly, I'm married to that 'white guy' & I can tell u he can win against mods and libs. Has record to prove it!"

I find it instructive that DeVore's wife enters the sexual-politics arena, too. It's not bad on her. But let's be real: Sexual politics is a part of politics. I see nothing that can be gained by pretending it isn't, and pretending that none of these superficial considerations matter in the voting booth.

They do. I allow that they probably shouldn't: And yet they do. Most people are superficial and especially so when it comes to voting.

Vote against Fiorina if you like (but note, per that last link, she sure doesn't talk in an egregiously moderate fashion -- I don't know if she walks the walk, but she talks the talk okay. I mean: She supports prop 8 and calls herself "pro-life," both positions being radioactive to the left.)

But beating her up over the gentle reminder that some people cast their votes based on goofy criteria? It just seems awfully contrived to me. It seems like the sort of thing you get annoyed at when you've already decided you disapprove of someone.

We're going to have a lot of heated primary fights. I personally think that is a good thing. As steel sharpens steel and all that.

But I want to see a genuine fight. I want these people to duke it out. As they say in sports, especially in big games, especially when it's a close contest: Let them play.

The refs -- us -- shouldn't blow the whistle on ticky-tack "fouls." Let them play, give them a bit of wiggle room, don't litter the playing field with flags over minor infractions.

Let them make their cases, and let's decide. And then let's unite afterwards.

There is a danger in claiming that a candidate is playing dirty pool: If that candidate should win a primary, it becomes harder for her one-time opponents to rally to her, because the idea that an election was stolen by unfair means is a really big thing to get past. Look at the Hillbuzz folks -- they hated how Obama won the primary against Hillary, and they're basically now conservative bloggers. They were so incensed by Obama's legitimately dirty-pool they are effectively Republicans for all intents and purposes.

There is real dirty pool and there is, well, ticky-tack stuff. Our primaries will be too bruising, too destructive, if ticky-tack stuff becomes the source of grievance.

By the Way: If anyone wants to instruct me about how DeVore is more conservative, and Fiorina less so, please do. To be honest -- I already pretty much accept that. That is the fuzzy idea I've gotten about this race: that Fiorina is the moderate, or even the RINO, and DeVore is the true conservative. (Or at least is more conservative.)

I buy that. I don't really have the facts to back that up, but that seems to me to be the thumbnail-sketch of the decision. And if that's why people support DeVore: That's fine, that's terrific.

My objection is solely about making a big deal out of this innocuous statement.

We can't both say "Sarah Palin has a strong appeal to blue-collar women voters!" like it's a good thing and then get all up in Fiorina's business for suggesting something similar about herself. It can't be that candidates we like are permitted to make mention of such things, and people we don't like are forbidden to mention them. Just because we like one and not the other.

Rules are rules and they apply to everyone. If it's okay for one candidate to make this sort of appeal, I think it's okay for another candidate to do so.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (133)
Post contains 1354 words, total size 8 kb.

Naturally MSNBC is calling this a "Purity Test" but it strikes me that at some point a party has to stand for something and this seems like reasonable ground for agreement to me.

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workersÂ’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

( We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is from a proposed RNC resolution. Candidates who want party support would have to sign off saying they agree with 8 of the 10 points. Obviously implementing this will provide some challenges in judging who meets some of the criteria but it's an interesting idea. Also, I might allow 7 of 10 to be the line but that's details.

More importantly, it's quite a good list. Abortion is handled particularly well (public financing is a good place to draw the line, while not casting out pro-choice Republicans as heretics).

The resolution hasn't been formally submitted but the more I think about it the more I like it. Yes, these are broad policy statements that have room for fudging but it's not just for office holders. I'd bet each of these items, couched in these terms, test well with voters.

Candidates could run around with this in most parts of the country and say, "if you are on board with 8 of these items, then you can be comfortable voting for me because so am I." Again, I'd like to see maybe 7, especially if you are going to use it to get votes, give people more reason to agree with you.

FTR-I'm 9.5 out of 10 (I'm not sold on a big troop increase as the key to victory in Afghanistan).

I see from some comments one of the things I like about this idea is annoying some...it doesn't cover every idea and isn't very specific. That would be a purity test (and it would vary by person). This list is a set of principles that a lot of people can agree on, it's a big tent but with some very strong anchors. If you get much beyond this in terms of policy positions, you get into fights. This sets up some ground rules, a frame work to win elections. We can fight the specifics out later but right now we need some solid guideposts laying out the boundaries and we can deal with the specifics later.

Another good way this is a good idea...it's built to allow people to opt out within certain bounds. A lot of people may not be in favor of DoMA or some other point. No problem. As long as you are with us most of the time, it's ok to disagree at other points.

Think how hard it is to get a group of friends to decide on what restaurant to eat at and then what movie to see. That's a small, self-selected group and unanimity is almost always impossible. A big political movement (at least one that wants to win) is going to have disagreements. That's fine, pick your heresies, just be with us a significant amount of the time.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:39 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.