Never let a crisis go to waste.

I have no link as it apparently just happened on tv, but AHFF Geoff tells me it's so, and I believe him.

Andrea Mitchell Beclowns Herself Anew: If you, unlike the President and his juicy-mouthed supporters, are actually capable of math, and realize that we cannot pay for more to have pricey insurance without some combination of direct taxes and indirect taxes achieved in a covert way through rationing or blowing up the deficit -- and of course all three will happpen; it's merely a question of which is emphasized -- then you "may just not know what's good for [you]," according to straight-down-the-middle non-partisan Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL: You've got 47% of the people in our NBC/Wall Street Journal opinion poll who have health insurance who don't like what the president is doing. The problem he's got -- 47% of the people who've got coverage don't want change. They don't like what they're hearing. Now, they may not know what's good for them, but the problem is that he always knew he was going to have to persuade people with insurance, that's the largest number, not the people without insurance, for expanded coverage. So they've got a real problem.

Tucked in there at the end is a sweet quote from Chrissy Matthews, shocked and surprised that a veteran cop could possibly handle a press conference with the media. (Surely no cops have ever had need to speak to a group of reporters before.) Shocked that the retarded prole was able to field questions and give cogent answers, Matthews observed:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to tell you: well I feel like we're watching "Britain's Got Talent," here. We'll be right back with Mark Whitaker and Roger Simon here on the Politics Fix. We've got our Susan Boyle here.

The media are pretty certain that no one but they can write sentences and ask questions and appear on camera, eh? No wonder they have such high opinions of themselves. They think they're blessed with some kind of superpowers, nearly a separate species, Homo media, from the rest of us.

Thanks to EddieBear and AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Old by now -- happened last night -- but I don't see it on the site.

Compare to the woman defending herself for merely making a 911 call about what appeared to be a robbery in progress.

This is, I think, why white people wig out about this whole issueb (as do "Uncle Tom" blacks). They (we) know we're all just one convenient racial controversy away from having the hounds called on us, as blacks react in a tribal fashion (that is, primarily exhibiting "racial solidarity," auotmaticaly siding with the member of the tribe), and the media of course takes that side too, and very few whites or "Uncle Tom" blacks are wiling to speak out in defense, because, hey, we don't want to be called "racist" or "Uncle Tom" either.

Better to let the sharks have this unfortunate stray than to try to rescue him. No one wants to draw the attention of the sharks, next.

In the scheme of things, Lashley and the woman who called didn't even get it that bad. The whole of the media wasn't united against them. It never became the official position of a respectable political group (or the position of blacks generally) that their scalps were required.

That happens. It didn't happen here.

Still, they got an awful lot of harassment and hatred. For what? For nothing. A woman who did her job as a vigilant citizen and a cop who did his job as an honest cop.

Barack Obama and "Skip" Gates endlessly lecture, but they only lecture to whites (and "Uncle Toms"). They don't lecture to race-conscious blacks to maybe calm down a little, to be a little slower on the trigger, to maybe demonstrate a bit of the racial goodwil they urge on whites.

Nor, of course, wil they permit themselves to be lectured to.

It's sweet as hell Lashley did this.

Not only is this a genuine "teachable moment" that might add some needed realism and nuance to that "national discussion on race" we've supposedly been having, but -- forgive me for being an incorrigible partisan -- Lashley pretty much demands Gates responds, thus keeping Obama's controversy alive for a few more days.

Actually... I was too fast -- too race-conscious -- to pin this on blacks.

It's not blacks per se. It's liberals, including white liberals, who attempt to "win" every argument by resort to the harsh ad hoimem of "racist."

Oppose us on health care? Racist. Oppose us on increasing taxes? Racist. Oppose us on amnesty? Racist.

Respond to a 911 call of a possible burglary in progress? Racist, assuming the people found at the scene are minorities. If they're white, as Allah noted, then of course you're not a racist. If you blow the whistle on whites shouldering a door in, you're a commendably civic-minded citizen.

This has to stop.

But it won't.

"Attitude Poor:" That's all we know of Gates' 1984 speeding citation. He protested the ticket and the speeding charge was dropped. He had to pay $25 in court costs.

Which, by the way, is very common. I did it myself. Any time you protest a ticket the police have to decide whether it's more important to send the cop to court, taking him from his patrol duties, or make sure you get nailed for the ticket. Most of the time they let you skate, unless you're a serial offender.

So, Gates doesn't like cops and thinks it's beneath his dignity to be stopped on the road while speeding. Didn't see that one coming.

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

We've been joking that Obamacare will save money by killing Grandma. Enter Senator Diane Feinstein:

Police were called on a group of retirees who refused to leave Sen. Dianne Feinstein's West Los Angeles office until she talked to them about health care reform.

Los Angeles police Sergeant Rich Brunson said Thursday that police lured the group of seven outside somehow, then locked the building's doors behind them.

They wanted to talk to Feinstein about expanding Medicare and using it as a model for healthcare reform.

Is it just me or have a lot of Democrats been hiding from constituents lately?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:44 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

For all your off topic needs.

Worth checking out...An old photo of 18,000 US soldiers forming the Statue of Liberty.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:24 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Does he actually intend to vote against confirming Judge Sotomayor? I doubt it. Is this really about his fight over healthcare? I think so.

Still, it emphasizes once again that if the Senate Republicans hadn't been hiding under their desks for the first six weeks after Sotomayor's nomination, we might have derailed it--or at least given the President a black eye.

[Sen. Max] Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next weekÂ’s floor vote on Sotomayor.

“I have no idea,” Baucus said. “I haven’t paid any attention and I haven’t announced … I’ve been so busy with healthcare. It’s under consideration. I’ll certainly know when I vote, but right now I can’t tell you.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has come out against Sotomayor, stating it will factor the vote into its legislative scorecard because the group feels the nominee would curb gun rights.

Baucus had an A rating from the NRA in 2008, as did two other Senate Democrats who ran last year: Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Johnson supports SotomayorÂ’s nomination.

No senator should be supporting the nomination of a judge with such a long history of race- and gender- bias. Her belief in racial and gender superiority--not mere difference, but superiority of some over others--is fundamentally at odds with the role of the judiciary. Her disregard for the Code of Judicial Conduct when she joined a woman-only club demonstrates an over-casual treatment of the ethics obligations of the judiciary. Finally, her shoddy work behind the bench on important constitutional issues in cases like Ricci and Didden suggest that she's just not up to the task of being a Supreme Court justice.

So, of course, she's going to get overwhelming support from the Senate when they vote next week.

UPDATE (10:24am): Via DrewM., Baucus has now announced that he will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor:

"I have long said that to be a Supreme Court Justice a person must meet three main criteria: personal integrity [even though she transparently lied to Senate Judiciary], professional competence [erm, Ricci much?], and a view of important issues that is within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. [race- and gender- bias is within the mainstream of judicial thought? Aye de mi!]"

Pressure was appropriately applied.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:00 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Via the Corner, an Irish couple invites 300 stranded U.S. soldiers to their wedding:

The 300 troops were stranded in Shannon last weekend after their Iraq-bound plane was grounded.

As luck would have it, they were booked into the same hotel as the wedding party for Amelia Walsh and Sean O'Neill.

And so the 300 troops were invited to join the festivities at the Clare Inn in Newmarket-on-Fergus.

The groom's uncle, Joe O'Neill said: "It didn’t take long before the combat fatigues were manoeuvring to the strains of ‘The Walls of Limerick'."

The happy couple posed for pictures with the troops earlier in the day and Eamon Walsh, the father of the bride, said the couple were "proud" to have the soldiers at their function.

Good on them. It's nice these soldiers got an unexpected, last gasp of Western Civilization on their way to defending it in the Middle East. I delight in happy coincidences like this.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:40 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Wait, people will show up in droves when you are handing out cash? Why who could have seen that coming?

The White House said Friday its wildly successful cash for clunkers program will continue over the weekend and the administration is working feverishly with Congress to get more money to extent the program.

...The House, which was set to leave Washington at the end of the day for a month-long recess, was trying to reach agreement on emergency legislation to increase the program's cash supply from its original $1 billion. There is speculation the amount could be doubled or tripled.

...News broke late Thursday that the program, which began only last week and had been scheduled to run through Nov. 1, might have already exhausted its resources.

The National Automobile Dealers Association said its survey of 2,000 dealers showed that about 25,000 deals had yet to be approved by the government, raising fears that the 250,000 vehicle sales slated to be funded through the program had already been surpassed.

Once again the Obama administration shows it awesome grasp of economics and ability to predict the results of their policies. We should definitely trust everything they say about health care costs.

BTW-For those interested, here's a take down of the program from a free market perspective. It's pretty obvious stuff, unless of course you are a leftist and happen to be President of the United States.

A taste:

There’s a distinct difference between a successful government program and a good government program. In effect, Cash for clunkers is a classic lesson in Economics 101: What Not to Do. It’s sadly reminiscent of Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy, except that instead of breaking windows to “stimulate the economy”, we’re destroying perfectly good cars. Meanwhile, we’re asking consumers to purchase cars they might not be able to afford and incur more debt. While the program is ‘working’ in the sense that people are buying new cars, not only has the government had trouble dispersing the money, the program is full of unintended consequences including dubious environmental benefits.

Here's my modest proposal, forget the proposed law that candidates for President have to show a birth certificate, make them take a freshmen level test in basic economics. If they can't pass that, they aren't eligible to be President.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:12 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

The President hasn't shown much interest in the details of healthcare reform and has left it up to Congress to arrange the final program. He just wants to sign his name to any law with "Health" in the title and call it a legacy. So it's no surprise that Congress has tied itself in knots trying to come to a solution without any leadership at all from the White House.

ABCÂ’s Z. Byron Wolf was there last night when the Senate officially blew past yet another deadline for action. Senator Baucus declared that his committee would not, could not pass a bill before the Senate leaves for August recess next Friday.

"The bill is not ready for prime time," Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said. (When did Mike Enzi become one of the most quoted and quotable Senators?)

“You folks keep looking for the news and there ain’t no news,” said Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Baucus’s primary Republican counterpart.

This is a big deal. When Congress missed President ObamaÂ’s August deadline for passing bills out of the House and Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to at least get the bill out of the Finance Committee to set up a Senate vote in early September.

Not going to happen.

Do I mind? Not. One. Bit. I just like to emphasize what a failure the President is.

Meanwhile, the House Energy & Commerce Committee is still trying to finish markup on their version (the third in the House) by the end of the day. That version will have to be reconciled with the versions that came out of Ways and Means and the Education and Labor Committee. Fighting between the Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus has left me with indiscreet glee and popcorn breath.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are now threatening to press forward on a party-line vote, which to me is a "Big Duh" moment. He's got the numbers. As much as Democrats would like to cast Republicans as the obstacle to all their single-payer wetdreams, they could just ignore us. But Reid's problem is that the Far Left sees this as their moment in the sun and they are overreaching. The Blue Dogs--many of whom were elected in red districts--see their reelection chances sinking under the weight of the enormous burden the Far Left wants to place on taxpayers.

The clever solution? Find a new villain.

“Our message is simple. It is now being echoed by the White House,” said the memo sent to all Democratic members. “And it counters the Republican ‘government takeover’ message.”

The message in the memo, though, won't fit on a bumper sticker:

“Remove the insurance companies from between you and your doctor— capping what they can force you to pay in out of pocket expenses, co-pays and deductibles, and giving you the peace of mind you will be covered for the care you need, if get sick, or if you change or lose your job.”

No shit that won't fit on a bumpersticker. San Fran Nan should try these: "Nothing says quality service like government bureaucrats!" Or "Hey, let's not put insurance companies between you and your doctor, let's put a government committee!" Okay, that was a little long too.

What do you got?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:02 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

As has historically been the case, Republicans are the folks in Washington you look to if you want ensure fair treatment and equal voting rights. Thank goodness our legislators aren't letting the Black Panther voter intimidation case go:

Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, obtained an opinion Thursday from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) affirming that charges could legally be refiled without violating the double-jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution and said he thought Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was obligated to refile the case.

"In all fairness, he has a duty to protect those seeking to vote and I remain deeply troubled by this questionable dismissal of an important voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia," Mr. Wolf told The Washington Times.

The Times on Thursday reported that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department's No. 3 political appointee, approved the decision to drop the case against the NBPP and its members even after the government had won judgments against them for their actions in November at a Philadelphia polling location.

If you want a real belly laugh--or perhaps to have that throbbing vein in your forehead come out--click over to the article to read DOJ's lame-ass excuse for dismissing the case. Is it possible they've never heard of YouTube?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:58 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Yikes. How tacky is this?

Four of the most powerful business leaders in America arrived at the White House one day last month for lunch with President Barack Obama, sitting down in his private dining room just steps from the Oval Office.

But even for powerful CEOs, thereÂ’s no such thing as a free lunch: White House staffers collected credit card numbers for each executive and carefully billed them for the cost of the meal with the president.

The White House defended the unusual move as a way to avoid conflicts of interest. But the Bush administration didn’t charge presidential guests for meals, one former official said, and at least one etiquette expert found the whole thing unseemly – suggesting it was a serious breach of protocol.

Did Joe Biden get a promotion to White House protocol officer?

(H/t: Hot Air headlines)

Posted by: Slublog at 06:18 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.