more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:43 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Buried in Todd Purdham's hit piece: Barack Obama's own concession that it simply takes time Sarah Palin didn't have to learn how to become an an acceptable, viable national candidate:

. At least one savvy politician—Barack Obama—believed Palin would never have time to get up to speed. He told his aides that it had taken him four months to learn how to be a national candidate, and added, “I don’t care how talented she is, this is really a leap.”

As I said ten times during the campaign, Barack Obama is just Sarah Palin plus six months of briefing books and town halls.

On the other hand, she's kinda making me look like a liar by waiting so long to start that process. She seems to prefer instead to keep her politicking within her comfort zone of the personal, which may please some of the already-converted, but it does nothing to persuade that additional 6-8% of the electorate (at a minimum) needed to win an election.

Posted by: Ace at 03:55 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Previously, just in time for the ridonculous 2008 elections, a majority of Americans had thought them "about right" as far as ideology. Now that figure is down to 42%.

Note that in 1994 or thereabouts -- when Republicans swept them out of power in Congress -- 50% felt they were too liberal and 37% thought they were "about right:"

We're not there yet, but we just saw a 15% net change in their too liberal/about right rating. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:46 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Haven't they suffered enough? As Iraqis celebrate what they are calling National Sovereignty Day, they get sucker punched like this.

President Obama is giving Vice President Biden a larger portfolio to handle, asking him to oversee reconciliation inside Iraq, but Biden will not be a mediator between factions.

"I think he will be involved in working with Shia, Sunni and Kurd to achieve political reconciliation. I would hesitate to use the term 'mediator,' " White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at Tuesday's briefing. "Somebody who I think can oversee that we are making progress, that our attention and our resources are matched by what we see needs to happen. I think that he's well suited to do that."

The new responsibilities for Biden will include the Vice President working with the head commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, as well as members of Congress and Iraqis themselves, in order to overcome political differences towards the end result of reconciliation. Gibbs said the new role could also include some in-country visits and emphasized the Vice President is uniquely suited for the new role.

Yes, well if you consider advocating for an unpopular 3 way partition of Iraq up until about a year ago a unique qualification for fostering reconciliation, I guess that's true.

It's pretty surprising that Biden has time for all of this. Remember the whole "Nobody messes with Joe" thing that was supposed to comfort us about how well the so-called "stimulus" money would be spent? I guess he's got the website number memorized and has eliminated all that wasteful spending, so he's ready to take on another project.

That's why they call him Sheriff Joe of Arabia.

Courtesy of the one, the only, Slublog

Posted by: DrewM at 03:31 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

The other day I asked if it was better if a philanderer was of the Bill Clinton use 'em and lose 'em variety, or the kind of guy to fall head over heels in love in the full maturity of middle-to-late adulthood.

I have my answer now.

Oh: He didn't really call her Pineapple-Head. I was trying to be hyperbolic. But it's hard to do so clearly, because he's saying crap that kind of walks up this line anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

A pretty non-explanatory explanation of the phenomenon at LiveScience.com.

Thanks to Dave at Garfield Ridge.

By the way, we're not buying any more F-22s, because Barack Obama decided that would be wasteful.

Instead, future air-superiority missions will be handled by Dog Parks and Bicycle Paths armed with our latest air-to-air missiles.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Breaking.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of Al Franken in the disputed U.S. Senate race, according to Franken attorney David Lillehaug.

Update - Coleman says he'll abide by court ruling, concedes.

A thought [DrewM.]

Yeah this sucks but...if Coleman were going to be defeated by anyone, I'm pretty excited that a fool like Franken won.

Repbulicans showed they would never stick together on a filibuster anyway, now it's clear what's being done is passed with Democratic votes. Plus, he's going to be a clown. Making him the face of the Democrats nationally will be fun.

If Coleman had lost to some bland, inconsequential cipher that would melt into the background they'd probably stay there forever. Sen. Smalley will be gone in 6 yrs. Maybe even in a rematch with Coleman.

In the meantime, Republicans can have some fun making him the poster boy of Harry Reid's Senate majority.

Playing the optimist looking for the pony in the pile of crap doesn't come naturally but it's what we've got to work with.

Thanks to Slublog for generously offering up the chance to post this idea which I originally floated in an email.

Posted by: Slublog at 11:18 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, may be; but then, they haven't read the bill, so, like all the Congressmen who voted in favor of it, they have no basis upon which to form an opinion at all.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Boy, does she look hot without her Fake Pregnancy Fat Suit.

As my friend said: The first vice-presidential candidate worth masturbating over since Lloyd Bentson.

Here's the story that runs with the pics.

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Long but strong WSJ on Obama's abandonment, both rhetorical and practical, of any kind of emphasis on democracy and human rights as US policy goals.

The writer scratches his head at Obama's headlong embrace of authoritarianism as the future of history:

At a glance, Obama's motives seemed readily apparent. Former State Department official J. Scott Carpenter observed that it was "obvious and understandable" that "the Obama administration wanted to distance itself from the tone and perceived baggage of the Bush administration." But there were two reasons why this explanation did not satisfy.

For one, Obama might have put his own stamp on the issue without turning so sharply away from the goals of human rights and democracy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan came to the presidency with a mandate analogous to Obama's, namely, to undo the works of an unpopular predecessor. At first, Reagan was inclined to eschew human rights as just another part of Jimmy Carter's wooly-minded liberalism. In an early interview, Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the Reagan administration would promote human rights mostly by combating terrorism. But soon Reagan had second thoughts: instead of jettisoning the issue, he put his own distinctive spin on it by shifting the rhetoric and the program to focus more on fostering democracy.

In a similar vein, Obama could have faulted the Bush administration for its ineffectiveness in promoting democracy and promised that his own team would do it better. Indeed, Michael McFaul, who handled democracy issues in the Obama campaign, declared after the election that the new administration would "talk less and do more" about democratization than Bush had done. But when McFaul was appointed to the National Security Council staff, he was given the Russia portfolio rather than the job of overseeing democracy promotion. The latter task, which had been entrusted to senior staff during the Bush years, was given to no one.

The other reason why Obama's tack cannot be understood merely by his impulse to be unlike Bush is that his disinterest in democracy and human rights is global. The idea of promoting these values did not originate with Bush but with Carter and Reagan, reinforced by Bill Clinton. Bush's innovation was to apply this to the Middle East, which heretofore largely had been exempted. Repealing Bush's legacy would have meant turning the clock back on America's Middle East policy. But Obama scaled back democracy efforts not only there; he did it everywhere.

Yesterday on Brett Baier's show, Mara Liason played Obama-apologist by claiming that Obama didn't really want Chavez crony Zelaya returned to power; he really wanted him deposed, and was happy with the outcome. However, she contended, he was displeased by the way it was accomplished, and furthermore, needed to say he supported the re-installation of Zelaya. Even though he didn't.

This was a similar spin to what we heard on Obama's cautious even-handedness on Iran. Don't you think Obama really wants the democrats in Iran to prevail?, John Kerry asked rhetorically He answered rhetorically, too: "Come on."

Well, "Come on" is not an adequate answer for me. I'm afraid I am not on Obama's level of brilliance and so I do not understand that when he seems to support the mullahs in Iran, he really opposes them, and when he seems to support the unconstitutional dictator-for-life bid of a Hugo Chavez footboy, he really strenuously opposes it.

Nor do I comprehend how in one instance silence is necessary to dispel any suggestion of "meddling," but in another instance it is necessary to directly intervene to dispel the accusation of "meddling."

Nor do I understand, when it comes right down to it, why it is the most powerful elected official of the most powerful nation on earth must so frequently resort to the puerile lies of a Mean Girl, so limited is he by peer pressure.

I do not understand why it is that Obama cannot merely say he supports democrats and liberalizers and reformers, if he does indeed support them, nor why he cannot say he opposes tyrants and leftist coups, if he does indeed oppose them.

And I don't really understand why those sympathetic to Obama are so easily satisfied by telling themselves "He must just be lying about something it's not necessary nor useful to lie about."

Maybe I, like the last president I voted for, George W. Bush, lack the nuance of Barack Obama, but generally I seem to think that if you support someone, you say so, and if you oppose someone, you say that too.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 770 words, total size 5 kb.