Welcome to tonight's semi-half-assed hump day ONT.

What Intrade Is Saying About the US Senate Races

As of Monday here are their odds on some of the closer Senate races:

Arkansas, 95% chance to flip to Republicans
California, 24% chance to flip to Republicans
Colorado, 63% chance to flip to Republicans
Connecticut, 25% chance to flip to Republicans
Delaware, 10% chance to flip to Republicans
Illinois, 53% chance to flip to Republicans
Indiana, 86% chance to flip to Republicans
Nevada, 38% chance to flip to Republicans
New York, 38% chance to flip to Republicans
North Dakota, 97% chance to flip to Republicans
Pennsylvania, 84% chance to flip to Republicans
Washington, 35% chance to flip to Republicans
West Virginia, 56% chance to flip to Republicans
Wisconsin, 87% chance to flip to Republicans

And here's Karl Rove's estimate from last week:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:49 PM | Comments (573)
Post contains 591 words, total size 6 kb.

...and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."
- C. S. Lewis

And in Rhode Island the chestless man factory is in full swing:

Football matchups between private schools can create mismatches based on a variety of factors, but it's rare that a school uses fear of injury to cancel a game.

That's exactly what happened Monday, when St. George's (R.I.) School canceled a game on Friday against fellow Independent School League member Lawrence Academy (Mass.), citing a concern over the disparity in the size of the two schools' players.

Talk about a team in need of a Blutarsky pep talk.

Posted by: Geoff at 05:28 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

So many races... so many within reach.

I met Renee Ellmers, candidate for Representative of NC-2, at BlogCon. She wanted to get her name out there, I guess, and certainly didn't mind mixing it up with silly bloggers to do it.

She doesn't mind mixing with her constituents and the common folk -- you know, like Barney Frank.

She needs money to run an ad defending herself against Bob Etheridge's latest smear.

After graduating from Madison High School, needing to work her way through college, Renee trained as a Medical Assistant. For the next eight years, working full and part-time jobs, she attended Oakland University, graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing.

A year later, working as a Surgical Intensive Care Nurse at Beaumont Hospital she met her husband, Brent, a graduate of the University Of Indiana School Of Medicine.

After their son was born, while visiting family in Cary, Renee and her husband decided to move to North Carolina. Today she works with her husband as Clinical Director of the Trinity Wound Care Center in Dunn.

I asked her what she did, mostly, and she said, "Wound care."

Wound care?!, I said. That's kind of a graphic image to drop on a voter. What the hell kind of knife-fighting hillbilly-feud district are you in down there in North Carolina? Say "Special treatment," I advised.

She laughed, or pretended to, which makes her cool in my book.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (225)
Post contains 756 words, total size 6 kb.

He was unchallenged forever. And acted that way. Acerbic, nasty. Not caring what his actual constituents thought. No, freed of the need to respond to constituent wishes, he could instead cater to the national liberal audience -- his real constituency, even though they don't live in his district.

And so he did. Nasty, acerbic, sarcastic, demeaning, out-and-proud liberal and not afraid to say so. Openly dismissive of conservatism -- in fact, openly dismissive of even moderation.

Hell, openly dismissive of his own actual constituents, who he condescended to and scornfully mocked at townhalls.

Well. Looks like all Barney Frank needed to remind him of his manners was a Marine insisting he mind his p's and q's.

Guess who suddenly gives a rat's ass what his constituents think?!

“Thanks for visiting my web page,” he says in a video, “the nice thing about the web is, it’s interactive. So if there’s any of these issues where you’d like to respond, or even have me respond to your response, please feel free to do so,” he says sincerely.

This from the man whose idea of “interactive” was to ask one of his constituents, “you said you’re worried about the deficit. Then you said you want to talk about the war. Who do you think paid for the war, Santa Claus?”

That memorable line came from a town hall in August 2009, when grassroots outcry over the presidentÂ’s health care law was perhaps at its peak.

Facing a boisterous crowd that day, Frank relied on condescension for crowd control. “I’m just curious,” he said to one voter, “Do you really think that’s thoughtful conversation? Do you really think that advances your argument?”

“What’s the matter with you all?”

Sean Bielat For Congress

"What's the mater with you all?"

Via Hot Air's headlines.

Are you kidding me. I repeat, along with Johnny Mac MacEnroe: Are you fucking kidding me here?

Posted by: Ace at 02:23 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

And I'm not knocking him for that. I don't want a philosopher, I want someone who wants to win.

But he really dances away from endorsing Sarah Palin here. And he won't just refuse to endorse her, he won't even say she's qualified, ven getting legalistic (citing the Constitution's definition of "qualifications" as a way to evade the question) (Hot Air link.)

Yes, of course he doesn't want to get dragged into a proxy fight for Palin when he's winning on his own merits, without such a distraction.

But I can't imagine Todd Palin is very happy with the answer.

All I can say is that those who wish to turn these fights into Palin Proxy battles -- and many of Palin's supporters, I think, do in fact see them that way -- really have to keep their eyes on the immediate prize.

It really should not be the case that only Palin 2012 matters, or even that that primarily matters, and that all lesser contests are really just proxy fights for that.

Really, that isn't the case. It can't be that. There is quite a bit riding on this election, and Sarah Palin's prospects for 2012 are rather down on the list as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Ace at 02:07 PM | Comments (104)
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

Slightly more big-budget than 2010: A Pudding Odyssey. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

Bad Headline and Thesis: I'm going to let this stand, but note the correction -- this ad, while in fact featured on Discovery.com's Treehugger.com, is in fact from 2009, so my attempt to link this to James Lee is obviously, what's the term, chronologically challenged. Thanks to "Bomber" for checking on that; everyone was linking it as if it was new, and I, um, just assumed. I know I shouldn't do that.

The ad is still the ad, of course, and still demonstrates the creepy kill-your-children attitude of the eco-fascists. But my attempt to draw a connection to James Lee is just wrong.

...

This is just wonderful.

Remember James Lee? Of course you do. He called babies "human parasites" and called for their extermination.

He also shot up the Discovery Channel's offices to protest their failure to get tough enough on global warming.

Well, the Discovery Company (owner of that channel and many more) now owns Treehugger.com, which they describe thus:

Discovery Communications, the number-one nonfiction media company, today announced the acquisition of the leading eco-lifestyle website, TreeHugger.com. The interactive site becomes part of DiscoveryÂ’s global multiplatform initiative Planet Green, which includes the first 24/7 eco-lifestyle TV network launching in 50 million homes in early 2008.

The deal brings TreeHugger.comÂ’s rich mix of news, blogs and advice to Planet Green and furthers DiscoveryÂ’s previously announced goal of developing original programming related to the environment, sustainable development, conservation and organic living.

And what is Treehugger.com now pimping as the "Coolest Environmental Advertising"?

Why, a Hanged Child.

I guess we know how to influence the Discovery Channel, eh? Shoot up their offices and you too can get you message highlighted by the company.

Unbelievable.

Thanks to Adam Baldwin.

Error: No connection here possible to James Lee's shooting spree, as he ad came in 2009.

Posted by: Ace at 11:17 AM | Comments (237)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Not to be Mr. Wet Blanket but I think we're all a little worried that while getting the GOP back in power is necessary, it's also necessary to make sure they don't immediately go back to the GOP circa 2000-2006 on spending.

No one is going to confuse presumptive Speaker in waiting John Boehner with a tea party activist but it's good to see he recognizes that if the GOP gets a second chance so soon, they need to really change things.

It's a process and inside baseball thing but it might actually lead to some spending discipline.

Current congressional rules are rigged to make it easy to increase spending and next-to-impossible to cut spending. Much of the law that governs the process--the Budget Act of 1974--is tied to rules instead of statutes. Consequently, we routinely waive the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes. Can't write a budget? Just waive the rule and move on. No harm, no foul. The "pay as you go" rule has been repeatedly ignored to justify billions of dollars in new spending and tax and fee increases. So we ought to start at square one and give serious consideration to re-visiting, and perhaps re-writing, the 1974 Budget Act.

While the culture of spending stems largely from a lack of political will in both parties to say 'no,' it is also the consequence of what I believe to be a structural problem. As Kevin McCarthy often says, structure dictates behavior. Aided by a structure that facilitates spending increases and discourages spending cuts, the inertia in Washington is currently to spend--and spend--and spend. Most spending bills come to the floor prepackaged in a manner that makes it as easy as possible to advance government spending and programs, and as difficult as possible to make cuts.

Again, this is not a new problem. But if we're serious about confronting the challenges that lie ahead for our nation, it's totally inadequate.

I propose today a different approach. Let's do away with the concept of "comprehensive" spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

No, this isn't sexy and isn't going to win any votes on November 2nd. Still if sweeping promises like 'cutting spending' and 'shrink government' are going to be transformed into actual policy at some point, we can't keep doing things the same way they've always been done.

Increasing scrutiny, breaking federal spending into smaller (though still huge) chunks of money and cutting down on 'must pass' spending bills seems a pretty good place to start.

I'm not sure how much of this a House majority can do on it's own without getting the Senate and President to sign onto a new law but there are clearly ways around the current law.

Still, it's a good sign that Boehner is thinking about new ways to do business. We aren't going to translate the conservative/tea party wave into anything concrete if Congress simply continues to play by the same old rules that have perpetuated the go-along, get-along ways of doing business.

Maybe, just maybe an old bull like Boehner is starting to see the light.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:13 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.

Ace: Relax, You'll Like It
Marco Rubio: Now I'm Really Worried About Where This Is Heading
Ace: No I Promise, This Time, It's Awesome

At Hot Air, the bitter clingers -- white working class voters, often considered the core of the "Reagan Democrats" -- moving back to the Party of Reagan.

esperate for jobs and cool toward President Barack Obama, working-class whites are flocking to Republicans, turning a group long wary of Democrats into an even bigger impediment to the partyÂ’s drive to keep control of Congress.

An Associated Press-GfK poll shows whites without four-year college degrees preferring GOP candidates by twice the margin of the last two elections, when Democrats made significant gains in the House and Senate. The poll, conducted last month, found this group favoring GOP hopefuls 58 percent to 36 percent — a whopping 22 percentage-point gap.

In 2008, when Obama won the presidency, they favored GOP congressional candidates by 11 percentage points, according to exit polls of voters. When Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006, the Republican edge was 9 percentage points. Â…

Though accustomed to trailing among working-class whites, Democrats can hardly afford further erosion from a group that accounts for about 4 in 10 voters nationally.

And, as Captain Ed points out, that's adults. Registered voters and likely voters may even show a more dramatic preference. (But caution on that; Allah's starting to wonder if in this oddball year of supercharged conservative-side enthusiasm if the usual idea that the adult sample favors the Democrats still holds.)

Before getting to the special thing for my victim Marco Rubio, let me once again note that We are the wave and none of this is going to happen unless we make it happen.

Sitting back and doing nothing will yield... so-so GOP gains. Sure, we can sit back and take our 30-40 seat pickup; we'll get some more governorships, too, and maybe 7 senators.

But to really win -- to really stick it in and break it off -- requires a dedicated push. It requires people who think of themselves as activists, but aren't really activists -- inactive activists, I guess -- to activate.

Sure, business as usual and favorable trends will get us 30-40 seats. 7 Senate pick-ups. Some statehouses. Some governors.

But to do something big -- something dramatic -- means we have to do more than vote. We have to get others to vote.

So let me once again mention the GOP's dial-40-voters from the comfort of your own home initiative (btw, it doesn't cost you anything). And note that without a dramatic push, great candidates who could win will in fact lose.

That means Sean Bielat loses to Barney Frank.

That means Dr. Rob Steele loses to John Dinglell.

That means Karen Harrington loses to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.

That means Chip Cravaack loses to Jim Oberstar.

And of course John Dennis will lose to Nancy Pelosi.

This is a big year -- potentially. There could be a wave of such height, mass, and speed that it sweeps all of these jackasses out of Congress and washes them into the streets.

On the other hand, we can all just trust someone else to do it, and let them win, and our guys -- our band of scrappy underdogs -- lose.

I'm going to be doing what I can to do turn-out. I've contacted the RNC and NRCC about a GOTV initiative I have in mind; I don't know if that's going to come off (looks like a no), but even if I can't do my thing, I'm doing something for GOTV.

Contact your local GOP offices now! Find out what you can do over the course of the next three or four weekends to help turn out the vote! And if you can't do that, do consider the option of placing 40 easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy calls from home, and asking a few friends to join you in that.

Anyway, sorry to be nothing but GOTV, but the fact is, we have no organization in these seats we need to win, and so we're going to have to resort to special measures -- heroic measures -- to have a legitimate shot in winning there.

And we can win. We just need to decide we want to.

Anyway, that said, here's something George Orwell (creator of New PuddingSkull ("Quenchy")) directed for us, based on a script by George Orwell and Ace of Spades.

See, told you, Marco. Not menacing at all. Unless you're a liberal.

PS, thanks to Stephen Gutowski at Eyeblast for hosting this.... you can view it at their site, too.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (203)
Post contains 825 words, total size 6 kb.

Selfless heroism.

Staff Sgt. Robert J. Miller, killed on January 25, 2008. will be the seventh service member to receive the Medal of Honor during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,

The Army said.he fended off fire from Taliban insurgents to allow his team to fall back to a safe position. The battle took place in the village of Barikowt, near the Pakistani border.

"Miller deliberately moved forward making himself vulnerable as he engaged several enemy positions to provide suppressive fire, buying time for his teammates to take cover," the Army's website states.

"We were fish in a barrel," said Sgt. James Odyga, Miller's commander in Afghanistan. "Enemy on right, on the left. Robby immediately started firing."

By "exposing his position repeatedly, he drew fire from more than 100 enemy fighters," and saved the lives of his fellow Green Berets and 15 Afghan soldiers, the Army said.

Miller's parents take consolation that their son gave his life so that others could live.

"If it wasn't for Robert's actions, they could have easily been killed," said his mother, Maureen Miller.

Once the ceremony is over and the Medal has been awarded, you can read more about Staff Sgt. Robert Miller here.

Naturally, Blackfive has more as well.

Information on the 6 other men to be awarded the Medal of Honor for service in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:56 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.