Welcome to the 1920's

The war to end all wars is over and now the jazz is playing, the hems are rising, and demon rum has been banished. So knock three times and say 'Johnny says hi' at the back door of the joint. It's time to grab some giggle water, dance the charles all nite with your Sheba, and everything is gonna be Jake.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:43 PM | Comments (769)
Post contains 542 words, total size 7 kb.

Boy this messaging excuse is all over the news isn't it?

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, Reid tells his colleagues that the party needs to "better integrate our legislative- and message-crafting functions into a coordinated nucleus managing policy, press and politics."

I'm a suit, so I think I can throw around that corporate bullshit act as well as anybody, but Reid is showing me some game here.

"I have asked Senator Schumer, whose communications abilities and tactical skills we all greatly respect, to lead this effort as chairman of the new office."

As ace pointed out earlier today, the problem isn't the messaging, it isn't the brand. The message we heard from Democrats was "fuck you", and the response from the voters was "Oh, were you finished? Well, allow us to retort."

We got the message just fine. But for a while they're going to insist the problem they lost big is "bad messaging." And Chuck Schumer's gonna fix it.

This is the stage of grief known as enial.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:44 PM | Comments (148)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Do I believe that? I believe ten, easy.

What up?

He makes the case that the partyÂ’s lack of money directly resulted in missed opportunities in an otherwise stellar year for the GOP.

Collins cites a study that he says found that the GOP could have won the Washington and Colorado Senate races with a better field operation and says that heÂ’d chalk up narrow gubernatorial losses in Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont to the same lack of funds for a ground game.

The veteran Republican operative also tallies 21 House contests in every corner of the country that he asserts “could have been competitive if not for lack of funds.”

As Allah writes, no, this isn't all about Steele, but it's hard to escape the conclusion he's a net-negative. Like many other people, I supported Steele's election to this position; but he's just not at all suited for it.

Posted by: Ace at 02:04 PM | Comments (326)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Pelosi has the power to dole out plum postings to her buddies.

Her non-buddies don't like that. But her, ahem, leadership caused most of her non-buddies to be un-elected, so her non-buddies don't rate.

Short of the votes to knock Pelosi out of leadership, Blue Dog Democrats have targeted the California Democrat's authority to appoint allies to influential positions, including the chairmanship of the party's campaign apparatus and the leadership of the internal panel that assigns lawmakers to legislative committees.

Pelosi and Reps. George Miller (Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who co-chair the committee-assigning Steering and Policy panel, plotted behind closed doors to kill a proposal that would make their appointive posts elective. Some rank-and-file lawmakers are unhappy with the extent to which Pelosi can unilaterally reward and punish lawmakers by giving or withholding choice committee assignments and the conferred power that makes Miller and DeLauro her chosen enforcers.

Miller called the dissenters "irrelevant," according to a source in the room, and Pelosi referred to them dismissively as "irritants."

Sources said that if Pelosi is willing to give some ground to agitators, it won't come in the form of blood spilled from her best friends.

Her best friends are all still in office. Except for Oberstar. So her best friends have had comparatively little blood spilled. But she's determined to retain her power to punish her rivals and reward her toadies.

Democratic aides described Pelosi's camp as "freaked" by the challenges to her authority.

Eric Cartman too.

Democrats gave Pelosi an earful behind closed doors; Pelosi continues to insist she did nothing wrong.

Pelosi told Democrats she was targeted in races around the country because she is an effective leader for them.

...

"I know some of you suffered because of ads targeted to me," Pelosi said to lawmakers at a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday. "They had to take down the person who brings the resources."

Right, we fear you, that's why most of us are rooting for you to succeed.

Tell a lie, okay, we want you to lose because it would just be too emotionally satisfying. But rational brains talking, we want you to win.

...

Pelosi, who is deeply unpopular with independents, became an issue in races across the country, as she appeared in campaign ads against Democrats.

Pelosi, described as "nervous" by one source in the room Tuesday, is now trying to tamp down an incipient rebellion from lawmakers who believe she should not win election to the post of minority leader on Wednesday.

A couple of Nancy's "best friends" don't seem like such good friends:

Two liberal lawmakers, Reps. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) and Peter DeFazio (Ore.), asked their colleagues to postpone Wednesday's planned leadership election until December — a move that would further threaten Pelosi's standing as Democratic leader.

Pelosi, her top elected lieutenants and her aides have been scrambling to defuse discontent following the election.

Question: Did Nancy Pelosi do so much wrong that she should lose her top-dog position? Consider: She did what the head of the party (King Hussein) asked; she did what the liberal base of the party insisted on.

It's not like she went rogue or anything. She acted as part of a team, all pursuing the same agenda.

So-- is she really to blame? Or is it just Obama and/or the entire liberal wing of the Democratic Party?

Since I think it's the latter -- Two more years for Nancy! Yayyy!

Posted by: Ace at 01:30 PM | Comments (76)
Post contains 599 words, total size 4 kb.

Audio at Hot Air; here's her remarks:

We know that Obama wasn’t vetted through the campaign, and now, you know, some things are coming home to roost, if you will, which is inexperience, his associations, and that ultimately harms our republic when a candidate isn’t — isn’t vetted by the media, that cornerstone of our democracy. So, you’re right, it’s not about me and whether you like my politics or not. You can push all that aside, and just pay attention to what that message is in this documentary, and that is that things have got to change for the better in the state of journalism. Otherwise, you know, it could be part of a demise of our democracy if that cornerstone erodes.

I've offered my guess before that the media hated Palin so much because she was the first political actor to speak about their Beloved Barry in such an irreverent, blasphemous way, and she gave them a two-week long heart attack as Palinmania seemed to be displacing Obamamania and threating their Beloved's swank new job.

I have to note for the twentieth time that instead of vetting Obama they "vetted" a private citizen who asked him a question.

There was at least a reason to vet Palin; there was no reason to "vet" (that is, personally destroy) Joe the Plumber. That last move gave the game away.

Related: Obama Governs As a Fallible Man, But Campaigned As an Infallible God: Linked by Hot Air, Timothy Darymple writes that Obama's problem is that he sold himself as a Messiah.

Overpromising is only part of the problem. Obama has underdelivered even ignoring his ocean-lowering rhetoric.

FACT: It wouldn't matter what Obama promised if the unemployment rate had fallen to under 7%. People would be pleased. It's not about words.

Words, Obama, are in fact "just words." Actions and results count.

This bothers me. People on the right are buying into the left's claim that this is, primarily, about messaging.

Obama is a failed president-- period. That is the problem. There is no "messaging" problem except that Obama did not promise to deliver the one thing he was capable of delivering -- failure.

People who work with words like to talk about words. If all you have is a hammer, as they say, all the world looks like a nail.

People who work with words should get past their biases and accept that words are not quite as important as they sometimes seem to word-workers.

Action, Results, Reality. These things matter far more than words. Fact, Evidence, Numbers. Far more than words.

There is no way to put lipstick on Obama's pig. It's not a matter of choosing the right messaging and the right tone. Obama spent a trillion dollars to end the Great Recession and the Great Recession is not yet receding, but we're now a trillion more in the hole. (Thanks, Barry!)

This is a fact. It doesn't matter what he says or doesn't say about it, or whether he strains to appear angry or humbled or comforting.

Looks and tone and words and messages do not put food on kitchen tables.

What's the Best Advertising Technique In the World? Should the campaign be cheeky and ironic, or serious and sentimental? Should there be a jingle? Should it be traditionalist or edgy and odd?

Here's a simple idea: All of that matters only at the margins. The best advertising technique in the world is pretty simple: Make a superior product.

If you've got that, it barely matters what your campaign is. If you don't have that, the greatest campaign in the world can only help a little at the margins. Advertising only really helps when there is no genuine way to distinguish between products except branding. Like laundry detergent. Come on, they're all the same. They make a big deal out of the 0.0001% by volume way they differ in chemical composition and try to sell people that this is a good reason to buy detergent A over detergent B.

But where there is a genuine difference in product quality -- advertising is marginal.

And so it is with Obama. People continue to argue about his advertising campaign while overlooking the fact that his product is awful.

He's offering foreclosures, joblessness, and hopelessness to people who simply were not in the market for such products.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.

This is indeed "security theater," but a special kind of security theater. TSA stand-abouts want to continue just standing around (BTW, does anyone really believe they're looking terribly hard at the x-ray imaging of your luggage?), and they don't like people opting out of the naked-body-scanners, because that forces them to not stand-about but do some actual work.

So they're attempting to make that as invasive as possible -- and let people know how invasive it's going to be -- to get you to walk through the body imager. So they can stand about some more.

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

First of all: I had no idea how much Christie exceeded his travel budget by. Did you? Okay, maybe you did. If you didn't, he spent $2000 more than his budget allowed, average, for 23 trips, for a total of $46,000.

Wait a minute, no he didn't; he spent $2000 extra total over those 23 trips, for an average excess charge of.... I can't even do the math. Like $90 per trip.

But fine, he went overbudget by $2000 over his career. Okay, you got your man, sheriff.

And who wrote this report?

“She was one of the most partisan career people I ever met,” von Spakovsky [a former counsel to Bush's AG] told TheDC. So partisan, in fact, that he describes Lee as someone who would encourage other DOJ lawyers not to pursue cases so that the Bush administration would not be able to take credit for being progressive on voter and civil rights issues.

Lefties allowing civil rights violations to take keep a conservative from claiming credit?

Wait, it gets worse.

When asked, von Spakovsky said Lee is “so biased, there is no way she could investigate and write an objective report. I can’t imagine anyone more inappropriate to be working on this kind of report in the IG office.”

According to another former DOJ employee who worked closely with Lee, Lee first got into trouble while working in the Voters Rights Division during the Bush administration. There, according to the former coworker, Lee was caught breaking into other employeesÂ’ e-mail accounts and spreading around personal information.

The former coworker also alleges that Lee sent out e-mails to the more “left-leaning DOJ employees,” suggesting that they leak sensitive information to the Washington Post. According to this former DOJ employee, once Lee was found out, the entire security system within the Voters Rights Division had to be revamped.

Not only that, but according to this source, Lee’s superiors – including von Spakovsky – were authorized by the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility to search her e-mails. They found evidence of Lee’s attempts to leak information to the Washington Post on, among other things, the Texas redistricting issue in 2005 when a handful of DOJ attorneys argued the new plan was unconstitutional because it unfairly favored Republicans.

It gets a little worse. Daily Caller can't confirm it, apparently, but drops a big "hmmm" suggestion: It turns out that Lee's "report" here was almost exactly identical to accusations leveled against Christie in his 2009 gubernatorial election, strongly suggesting that Lee leaked the phoney-baloney charges to the press and/or his opponents and/or Democrat operatives generally.

Ms. Lee? Darryl Issa would like to ask you a few questions...

I really want to hear more about her telling coworkers to allow people's (minorities') civil rights to continue to be violated just to gin up minority anger about that. I really, really want to hear about that.

Thanks to Dr. Spank.

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

From Slu, a live stream of the ceremony.

He's the first recipient of the award to survive his action during Afghanistan and Iraq.

Specialist Giunta noticed two insurgents carrying away a fellow soldier. He immediately engaged the enemy, killing one and wounding the other, and provided medical aid to his wounded comrade while the rest of his squad caught up and provided security. His courage and leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon's ability defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow American paratrooper from enemy hands.

You can read more about Staff Sergeant Giunta at the Army's official Medal of Honor site. The full citation will be there shortly after the conclusion of the ceremony.

In the meantime, below is a long but well worth the time profile from 60 Minutes. I'm not going to play the "allergies" or "dust" card...no excuses, I flat out teared up listening to what he did and the humble way he caries himself.

Thank God America has men like Staff Sergeant Giunta. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:47 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 205 words, total size 3 kb.

Racism!

Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel did break the rules and was convicted this morning of 11 of the 13 ethics violations leveled against him by a House panel.

A sanctions hearing, at a time yet to be determined, will decide what punishment he faces.

Possible punishments include a House vote deploring RangelÂ’s conduct, a fine and denial of privileges.

Rangel was not present when the committee rendered its decision.

Not sure how much they can do to him in the end. He's not going to be Chairman of Ways and Means because the Republicans are going to take over. They could prevent him from being the Ranking Member but that's not that big of a punishment. I doubt they'd kick him out and even if they did, he's already been elected to the next Congress. I really doubt the first act of the new GOP majority is going to be refusing to seat an 80 year old black guy.

I'm sure they'll think of something.

Thanks to tmi3rd for the heads up.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:44 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Did you know the law doesn't require TSA agents at airports? Airports are also allowed to opt-out of TSA and hire private contractors for security work; either way, the federal government pays the costs.

Meanwhile, the TSA refuses to switch to an Israeli-type security regime, preferring useless but showy demonstrations of "security theater."

I don't know. I think this is a problem with no good answers.

1, private companies will not impose Israeli-type security provisions either; they will immediately be sued out of existence by CAIR for taking special notice of Muslim passengers. The government is the only organization big enough to withstand such suits, but of course it never would do anything that is so politically incorrect.

2, therefore, the choice isn't really between strong security and weak and/or invasive security; it's a choice between weak and/or invasive security and... well, there is no choice. Whatever happens we will have weak and/or invasive security.

At least until the next plane blows up (and it will blow up) and 300 people die. Then we will debate these issues again, and... do nothing again.

Posted by: Ace at 07:32 AM | Comments (297)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.