I just posted this as a comment. I thought it's a good point to mention on the main page, to debate.

Look:

Vent and all that, but let us all remember that in 2006 and 2008 many GOP-leaning voters either stayed home or actually voted for the Democrats.

This has turned out to be every bit the disaster that some feared.

Although many people-- including me, at times -- said "The hell with 'em, let's teach those RINOS a lesson!," I do not think many of us continue to hold a high regard for the "Let's teach them a lesson by letting them lose" impulse.

I think we're all realizing that squish Republican IS, in fact, much better than Liberal Democrat.

Right?

So why are we doing this again?

I understand venting on a blog. That's fine. I just hope it doesn't go too much farther than that, and I hope we don't all start talking up how wonderful it will be to teach our political leaders a lesson.

Yes, primary-challenge the intractables and try to beat them and replace them with better candidates.

But I really hope we don't lose sight of the fact that we're in a bad position -- worse than we anticipated, I think it's fair to say -- and that winning is indeed preferable to "losing with principle and ideological integrity."

Am I serving as an apologist? You betcha I am. I also served as an apologist for the horrible candidate John McCain, and I will continue to serve as an apologist until we actually win something and can better afford to be choosy.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Stimulus? I meant Stabilization.

Your typical not-so-smart guy would think that the Stimulus -- erm, Stabiization -- is working when it achieves the parameters of success Obama actually specified for it -- to wit, "immediately jumpstart job creation:"

That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth.

-- Barack Hussein Obama

Of the four words in that conditions-of-success summary, I think the four most important words are "immediately," "jumpstart," "job," and "creation."

Or, keeping the unemployment rate below 8%, as they predicted in their notoriously erroneous chart.

But Larry Summers is smarter than the average. He knows that those criteria are meaningless.

What does count? What does indicate the Stimulus -- ehhh, Stabilization -- has worked its stimulative -- um, stabilizing -- magic?

Why, Google search-term statistics, silly!

Of all the statistics pouring into the White House every day, top economic adviser Larry Summers highlighted one Friday to make his case that the economic free-fall has ended.

The number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels, Summers said.

Oh thank God. For months I had been sweating the famously leading economic indicator of Google searches for "economic depression."

Think of all those unemployed, or less than fully employed, search terms... search terms like "Spicy Latina Justica" or "Lace Wigs." They've really been taking it on the nose.

But now that the searches for "economic depression" have declined so markedly, those under-employed search terms will finally get back to work.

Search for the term were up four-fold when the recession deepened in the earlier part of the year, and the recent shift goes to show consumer confidence is higher, Summers told Peterson Institute for International Economics.

You know what doesn't show that consumer confidence is higher? The actual consumer confidence indices and surveys.

But that's "old thinking."

Summers continued the administrationÂ’s push-back against critics of President Barack ObamaÂ’s handling of the recession, defending the economic stimulus package against Republicans critics who have tried to paint the program as a failure because it hasnÂ’t stemmed the unemployment rate.

Silly critics, thinking that a spending initiative pledged to "save or create" jobs which hasn't "saved or created" jobs is a failure simply because it didn't do what it was intended to do.

Again, old thinking.

Old thinking, in fact, much like thinking that job losses and job creation were the relevant terms of evaluation vis a vis the unemployment rate and economic health of the nation. Who knew there was a third, more important, statistic lurking out there, "jobs saved"?

But note now that that new-fangled statistic is also discarded as not truly bearing on the current situation. We have a new statistic that proves success.

Google searches.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

The Age of Obamanomics: Rob Crawford writes:

I think Larry just created a new form of investment -- search term futures.

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

Lindsey Graham asked Sotomayor about the left-wing positions she'd taken -- the advocacy positions she'd endorsed -- as head of the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Sotomayor, shockingly, claimed she couldn't remember such piffles. Graham suggested she review the memos bearing her signature he'd mentioned so that she could be asked about them intelligently, without the claim of "I don't recall" halting inquiry.

I expected later questioners to pick up this line of questioning later. They didn't.

To make matters worse, Sotomayor was sometimes unresponsive, and even slippery, in her under-oath testimony. She disavowed virtually all knowledge of the PRLDEF lawsuits, even though Republicans had minutes from old board meetings showing that Sotomayor, as head of the litigation committee, “review[ed] and recommend[ed] a litigation program.” She said she didn’t really mean what her “wise Latina” speech clearly said. And she claimed always to stick closely to the facts and the law, even when she had advocated otherwise.

Sometimes, she descended into non sequitur. On her final day of testimony, Graham asked, “Do you believe that your speeches, properly read, embrace identity politics?”

“I don’t describe it as identity politics,” Sotomayor responded, “because it’s not that I’m advocating the groups do something illegal.”

What in the world did that mean? Graham didnÂ’t follow up.

Nor did Republicans follow up on dozens of other questionable statements. And that was the GOP’s failing. To uncover the real Sotomayor, the activist as well as the judge, required asking short, persistent, fact-based questions. Instead, several Republican senators speechified, lingered on the “wise Latina” issue, and failed to explore in depth her work at PRLDEF. They let her evasions stand.

And in the end, they gave up. As elected officials, the GOP senators didn’t see the value in a scorched-earth fight they were going to lose anyway. And now Sonia Sotomayor — whoever she is — heads to the Supreme Court.

The calculation was simple. As Drew already mentioned, there was no way they could block her -- not even if they filibustered. The very idea that Snowe or Collins would join them is laughable, and even if the Maine Sisters did, they'd still need another Democrat. Which they wouldn't get.

So they decided, as York says, to give up. If they had pressed Sotomayor on the issue, they might have elicited answers -- and possibly further transparent perjury -- that made it a political imperative for the GOP caucus to filibuster, as the base would demand it.

But even if they had, the result would have been the same: Filibuster fails.

So they decided not to press, not to trap Sotomayor in an answer that wound up trapping them.

I can't say I'm pleased with this strategy, as it is at heart a con designed to appease the base by seeming to press her on critical issues -- Ricci, wise Latina -- while deliberately avoiding issues that could have wounded her more.

I understand the strategy, I suppose -- when failure is foreorodained, different strategies suggest themselves -- but I can't endorse a con, once again, on their own constituents, supporters, and donors.

The best I can say is that it's a face-saving, capital-protecting strategy and maybe that's justifiable when actual victory is not possible.

The fact is that we got creamed last year and simply do not have the votes to filibuster except with Democratic aid. GOP Senators are boxed in and limited by this reality, even if we want them to behave as if they're not.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

Out of the Ninth yesterday (PDF), a decision so obvious, I agree with Judge Reinhardt. Here's a taste:

On August 22, 2003, two San Carlos Police Officers broke into Bruce HopkinsÂ’ home. They did not have a warrant, nor did they have probable cause. All that they had was a statement from a third-party that Hopkins had been involved in an extremely minor traffic incident, an incident so minor that it
did not cause as much as a scratch on either of the vehicles involved, and that he appeared to have been drinking. Based on this information, the officers broke into HopkinsÂ’ home with their flashlights shining and their guns drawn. When they found Hopkins, they handcuffed him, removed him from his house, and placed him under arrest.

The officers’ explanation for their warrantless entry is both simple and audacious: They claim that, after hearing that Hopkins had the smell of alcohol on his breath, they feared he was on the brink of a diabetic coma and broke into his house in order to offer medical assistance. According to one officer’s deposition testimony, they entered with their guns drawn because individuals suffering from diabetic emergencies “may sometimes be confused” and can be “combative.” Apparently, in the officer’s view, someone suffering from such a medical emergency may need to be deterred by deadly force. Hopkins, however, was neither confused nor combative because he was not suffering from a diabetic emergency — he was lying in his bedroom watching television, which is where the officers found him. Yet, after the officers discovered that he was perfectly healthy and non-comatose, they did not say “we’re glad to see that you are safe, sir; we’ll be on our way now.” They did not say, “Sorry for the disturbance and for damaging your property.” No, instead they handcuffed Hopkins at gunpoint, removed him from his home, placed him under arrest, and brought him to the San Mateo County jail for the final chapter in the case of the nonexistent diabetes.

Hopkins' civil rights suit can proceed.

And from the lower courts, things that you don't hear about too often, but matter a great deal.

Some New Jersey Appellate Division judges are unwilling to overturn a Family Court judge's conclusion that a woman's refusal to consent to a cesarean section can, as a matter of law, be considered an element of abuse and neglect to the child. The facts in that one were also egregious (PDF); New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) learned of the case because of the mother's refusal to consent to a c-section. Check out the concurring opinion for a good legal discussion why a mother's right to refuse medical treatment should not subject her to investigation for child abuse.

Finally, you remember the story of the community college student whose speech professor called him a “fascist bastard,” cut his speech short, and refused to give him a grade when he tried to give a speech about his opposition to gay marriage? A U.S. district court approved his request for a preliminary injunction (PDF) of the college's "Sexual Harassment Policy", which by its text prohibited his speech.

Grading:

Reinhardt/police conduct -- Good decision.
NJApp Div/c-section -- Bad decision.
USDist Ct/speech rights -- Good decision.

Agree?

Oh, yeah, one more I meant to post earlier in the week, especially for Steve in HB: an Ohio court has concluded (PDF)that putting a prize limit (dollar amount) on games of skill is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not really sure what to think about that.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:30 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

Given the loving response to my video yesterday, I will splain my first point a bit. I was not opining on Obama's citizenship, as a matter of fact during the election I was hoping that he would be found to be an alien and disqualified. No such luck. If he was somehow now found unqualified and removed from office I would giggle like a schoolgirl and dance a jig. He is a menace.

My point and the reason I said I don't give a shit about that related to his current status as the lawful Commander in Chief of our military. Once he was elected, certified and inaugurated he is the officer appointed over every single service member and unless his orders are unlawful on their own merits, then they are binding. This is not something up for discussion or suit, it is a simple fact necessary for good order and discipline. If any soldier could challenge the standing of an officer appointed over him, we would be paralyzed and incapable of action.

Major Cook used his military service and the unit he was assigned to improperly and he screwed the others in that unit when he was properly dropped from the deployment. If Obama was found to be ineligible for the Presidency then his Commander in Chief status would be invalidated as well, but absent a legal ruling or Congressional action there is no place for random soldiers asking to see his papers.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 08:03 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 1 kb.

Inevitable.

My wild ass guess is she'll get at least 14 Republicans (Merkowski, McCain, Martinez, Lugar, Brownback, Bunning, Snowe, Collins, Bond, Gregg, Ensign, Voinivich, Alexander, Hutchinson) and maybe some more depending on how Graham comes out and a wild card or two.

Add that to her solid 60 (well 58, unless Byrd and Kennedy manage to make it in) which will put her in the neighborhood of the Roberts' total but well ahead of Alito's.

(Added: Snowe's a yes and Martinez too. No points for predicting those, they were too easy.)

McConnell is a no.

Having watched most of the hearings to one degree or another, I think the Republicans did about as good of a job as they could. They were faced with a nominee who basically lied when confronted with her past statements. Short of jumping up and down and calling her just what she is, what could they do?

Now while you may say they should have done just that, don't ignore the price to be paid for doing it.

The narrative would have immediately become "Republicans hate Hispanics and women" not that Sotomayor is a liar and or incompetent. I'd be willing to pay that price if it meant her nomination was going to be stopped by it but it wasn't. There are 40 Republicans in the Senate and you aren't going to get all of them to vote against her let alone pick up any Democrats no matter what you say.

If Republicans became the issue (and you know the Dems and MSM were itching to do it), it sucks all the air out of the debate and puts the focus on Republicans proving their aren't racists and no one would pay attention to what a lousy nominee and liar Sotoamayor is. Keeping the focus on her was the right tactics and strategy.

The Democrats were able to Bork Bork not just because they had the press on their side, that's nice, but what really counted is they had the votes. They used their smear tactics to energize a Senate majority. Reeving up a minority only to run them off a cliff isn't smart politics or long term strategy.

The Republicans accomplished a number of things through the hearings.

First, they got Obama's own nominee to disagree with his 'empathy' standard. No, she doesn't mean it but it will make for some nice issue adds in the future.

Second, the nominee of the most liberal President ever, in a Senate with 60 Democrats still felt compelled to parrot the conservative view of judicial philosophy. That shows the power of the issue and how deeply unpopular the liberals know they are in this area. Yeah, that's dangerously close to a useless moral victory but it shows the impact 20+ years of harping on this issue has had. It's a long game and we are winning with the voters.

Control of the language is important and dispiriting the liberal legal community is simply delicious.

Third, as polls show, the Republicans managed to turn the public against her (um maybe not based on today's poll). Yes, she'll get on the Court but the Democrats will be doing it, as Ace pointed out, against the will of the voters. Politicians only get to go to that well so many times and the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee made the Democrats use on of those chits. It's one less availible for some other craptastic idea of Obama's.

When you are the minority party, the road back to power is long and filled with seemingly inconclusive 'victories' that none the less add up over time. Defeating Sotomayor wasn't going to make Obama name a Roberts or Alito, let alone a Scalia to the Court, bloodying his nose was the best we could hope for.

Politics is the art of the possible, Republicans did just about as much as was possible during these hearings.

Addendum...I do think there were some areas where they could have done better like PRLDEF and her until nominated membership in an all women's club.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:55 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 733 words, total size 5 kb.

Another big day of protests in Iran. Today's actions were triggered by former President and current head of the Assembly of Experts (the body that theoretically oversees the Supreme Leader) Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's decision to lead Friday prayers at Tehran University.

Opposition leaders have been reporting that Rafsanjani was trying to build clerical support for the ouster of the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. While he didn't go that far in his speech, he did take his shots at the government and its response to the protests.

Doubt has been created (about the election results)," Rafsanjani said. "There is a large portion of the wise people who say they have doubts. We need to take action to remove this doubt."

Rafsanjani couched his sermon in calls for unity in support of Iran's Islamic Republic. But his sermon was an unmistakable challenge to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared Ahmadinejad's victory valid and ordered an end to questioning of the results. Rafsanjani said the dispute has split clerics and warned of "crisis."

Worshippers interrupted Rafsanjani with chants of "azadi, azadi" — Persian for "freedom" — and the cleric got tears in his eyes as he spoke of how Islam's Prophet Muhammad "respected the rights" of his people. Rafsanjani said the leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "knew that people's vote was the most important thing in our country" and insisted it be enshrined in the founding of the Islamic Republic.

"Where people are not present or their vote is not considered, that government is not Islamic," Rafsanjani said.

He criticized the postelection wave of arrests, saying the leadership should show sympathy for protesters and release those detained. "Sympathy must be offered to those who suffered from the events... and reconcile them with the ruling system," he said. "We need to placate them."

Today was the first time that defeated presidential candidate and vehicle for the protesters Mir Hossein Mousavi has appeared at Friday prayers, though the brave, brave mullahs refused to broadcast the event on national TV for the first time ever.

After the prayers demonstrators once again took to the streets and were met with violent reactions from security forces (scroll around a bit for links, including crowd estimates of a million or more, though add appropriate doses of salt).

I wish someone would ask Obama if Iran's fist is still clinched.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:29 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

UNODIR, I think we count coup on this one.

...CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen's contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network....

...When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen's comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, "I can't comment on personnel matters."

When you're getting pummeled badly by FOX in every freaking time slot, you tend to be sensitive to certain ummm...."issues" that might affect viewer retention.
more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:04 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

For Top Headlines, blah, blah, blah.

Also: Lottsa late night posts yesterday, so scroll down. My favorite comment in the Sotomayor post:

Guess my strategy of folding like a cheap pup tent in a hurricane well in advance of the hearings wasn't such a good idea.

Posted by: John Cornyn at July 16, 2009 11:12 PM (xM6ve)

Ya.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

If you have not seen this video, please watch it now.

Posted by: Open Blog at 03:53 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.