Eight races or so to call in the House. Alaska hanging on in the Senate.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:03 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Above the post update:

The Department of Defense finally released a statement and they got nothing. No foreign launches tracked by NORAD, no US launches occured, no evidence on FAA radars and no pilot reports (other than the news helicopter report that started it all).

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Original Post:

Following up on my earlier post...

NORTHCOM says it wasn't a 'foreign' missile launch. It would be more definitive if they said it wasn't a missile launch at all or at least that they didn't see any launch. I'm guessing they left that out since it could theoretically be a private launch that didn't register as big enough for their systems to see.

Also, the FAA in SOCAL says they see missile launches in the area on their radar all the time but nothing turned up during the time in question.

Best guess at this point is the optical illusion theory (scroll down to end of post).

*I updated the headline because "probably" was too strong of a term. We still don't know for sure.

The video is below the fold. It really looks like a missile. I gotta say, I was skeptical of the contrail theory, then kind of bought it but watching that again? I'm back on missile.

More: Via "dave g." in the comments another vote for contrails. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:15 PM | Comments (454)
Post contains 253 words, total size 3 kb.

Good evening all.

Bob Kerrey: Obama is so Incompetent He Needs Someone to Do His Job for Him

As Patterico points out Kerrey doesn't actually come out and say this but that's what he's really means. And according to Kerrey the US (and Obama) need a Chief Operating Officer:

The COOÂ’s duties would lie in execution of government policy, including ensuring that the government is well managed and that it addresses key national priorities as one entity and not as hundreds of separate agencies operating in silos.

Your Daily Christie: Chris Christie vs. David Gregory
I love it when politicians reject the entire premise of a reporter's question. And here Gregory is clearly not used to it.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:27 PM | Comments (714)
Post contains 628 words, total size 8 kb.

Imagine you're a lefty.

No, wait, come back. This is only a thought exercise. There's no patchouli or granola involved. Honest.

Okay, now think about it: two years after it seemed a new era of (liberal) hope and change had swept the nation, your ideology was soundly rejected by the American people. Surely it is now time to take a breather, carefully study the election results and ask yourself what message the American people were trying to send.

Or, you could lash out at someone you hate and embark on a petty campaign against their latest venture.

Guess which path the left has chosen?

It’s one thing if Fox News gives Sarah Palin a platform. But when Discovery Communications – home to the Discovery Channel, the "Planet Earth" series, the Science Channel, Animal Planet, and TreeHugger.com – gives a show to Sarah Palin, it undercuts everything the Discovery brand has come to represent.

Anti-environmentalism has no place in the Discovery Communications lineup. Demand that the company cancel "Sarah Palin's Alaska" before it airs.

Just saying.

Jim Geraghty previews the first episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska" at National Review. When I first heard about the show, I was skeptical. However, this weekend, I saw a number of promos and was charmed. No matter what one thinks of her politically, it is hard to deny that Palin has an amazing amount of charisma, and the camera really does love her and her family. And as irritating as Alaska can be politically, the natural beauty of the place is remarkable.

It seems to me the show has two goals - cause viewers to take a second look at Sarah Palin and get people interested in visiting Alaska. If the show is as good as the promos they've created for it, it will easily accomplish both.

Posted by: Slublog at 05:25 PM | Comments (55)
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

The interesting thing about the bill is that it apparently doesn't contain a severability clause, which usually states "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."

I didn't realize they still wrote laws without that clause. But apparently they did write ObamaCare without that, which means it operates by the old-fashioned default rule that if any part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional. (If any one knows, please tell me why you figure they didn't include this provision.)

Of course, this means that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, it's not just that provision that is nullified, but the whole kit and kaboodle.

And Ilya Somin notes this is not some Hail Mary longshot, but a genuine question that just could go our way.

One hidden factor that militates in our direction: As a general matter, the Court is reluctant to strike legislation down (or they're supposed to pretend they are, at least), because legislation is presumed to contain the will of the people acting through their elected representatives.

In this case, though, the legislation was passed via very dubious maneuvers designed expressly to avoid the will of the people altogether. And the results of the 2010 election demonstrate precisely what the public thought of this bill (as if that wasn't clear before).

In this case, then, striking the law down for any reason whatsoever would in fact be comporting with the will of the people. The law itself represents an anti-democratic imposition upon them.

I say that's a hidden factor because that's a no-no as far as actual judicial reasoning. But I'd have to imagine that sort of thought is bubbling around in the heads of any justice who's on the fence about the matter.

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 05:00 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

I do.

When the communist grip on Europe collapsed. Yeah, I'm that old.

I remember.

A sea of humanity surged against that place, where so many died trying to escape.

I even remember when I heard Ronald Reagan say these words, and I thought at the time, he was insane. You can't defeat them, you can't say words at the Brandengurg Gate that makes them collapse.

I was wrong about that. Keep that in mind about me. I am occasionally wrong.

tipped via someone on Twitter and I missed it, my bad. Hope the link makes up for that.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 02:15 PM | Comments (251)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

This seems useful:

“After lining his campaign war chest with his party bosses’ cash, Manchin is now doubling down on his commitment to join them in rubberstamping President Obama’s liberal, job-killing agenda in the Senate,” Walsh continued. “We look forward to hearing Joe Manchin explain how backing an anti-coal, pro-stimulus, and pro-Obamacare liberal like Harry Reid is ‘putting West Virginia first.’”

The GOP is denying they made an offer to him to switch parties:

Additionally, a Senate Republican leadership aide said GOP leaders made no such offer. Manchin and the Senate GOP aide were reacting to a FoxNews.com story posted earlier in the day. The report indicated that leaders were trying to entice Manchin to switch parties by offering sweeteners, such as support for favored legislation, and that he was considering the offer.

The "favored legislation" included, supposedly, a billion for coal-to-oil development:

According to Fox News, Republicans are trying to tempt Manchin to switch sides by dangling the carrot of a plum committee assignment. Like, letÂ’s just spitball here, perhaps a seat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where Manchin might find a friendly ear for a pet project that has been DOA under the Democratic leadership: a plant to convert coal to diesel fuel.

For now, though, even with the tantalizing prospect of $1 billion in funding for the plant, itÂ’s a no go from ManchinÂ’s corner.

I don't know if I buy this-- either Manchin votes against Obama or else he's in big trouble in 2012. I would have gotten annoyed about the $1 billion boondoggle, except I don't know if the story's even true.

Posted by: Ace at 02:02 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

At Hot Air: reports of the death of business as usual has been greatly overstated.

While McConnell is not demanding that rank-and-file Republican senators vote against the earmark ban, heÂ’s laying out his concerns that eliminating earmarks would effectively cede CongressÂ’ spending authority to the White House while not making a real dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. And McConnell is signaling his concern about the awkward politics of the situation: even if the DeMint moratorium passes, Republican senators could push for earmarks, given that the plan is nonbinding and non-enforceableÂ…

DeMint on Tuesday released a list of 10 other Republican senators who back his proposal, including Cornyn, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada, Mike Enzi of Wyoming — along with Sens.-elect Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire…

McConnell’s heightened activity signals what Senate insiders say is real fear among senior members — that the DeMint plan actually stands a serious chance of passing. And that could have uncomfortable implications for a bloc of GOP senators — like McConnell, a member of the Appropriations Committee — who annually send hundreds of millions of dollars for projects in their home states…

Jim Inhofe, as conservative as they come, plans on making the case for earmarks.

His argument is Ron Paul's, who famously never votes in favor of a budget but is always happy to earmark federal money for his district. The argument goes thus: Given any amount of x dollars flowing through the federal government, the decision as to how to spend it will either be made by unelected bureaucrats of the executive, or by elected members of the legislature. Thus, Ron Paul argues, earmarking money for specific projects is not unethical at all, but somehow a kind of assertion of the Constitutional order of things.

One can also note this: It is John McCain who has fought most vigorously against earmarks, but largely as a method of fighting corruption, not reducing federal spending. Earmarks, he reckons, are handmaidens to corruption, as money flows in to campaigns and then flows out, a thousandfold, as earmarks benefiting "friends."

And one can further note that the blogosphere has ran with the idea that earmarks are the enemy, reinforcing the meme, but without a great deal of thinking going into the exercise.

All that may be true, but here's some inescapable truth: Earmarks are largely a competitive exercise between legislators to demonstrate to their constituents that they are better at delivering federal resources to local concerns than their fellows. The question, regarding pork, is never Does he deliver pork? (almost everyone delivers some) but rather Does he bring in more pork than his colleagues? Harry Reid, for example, ran on that idea, that among the other porkers on Capitol Hill he was especially porky and thus especially useful to his constituents.

There is no way that every legislator can earn the title "King of Pork," as John Murtha and Robert Byrd did (pork be upon them), nor even lesser titles such as Duke of Pork or Viscount of Pork.

In order to demonstrate pork-effectiveness to local voters, to show one is in the game of delivering deliverables to local concerns, the only way everyone can "win" is simply to agree to everyone else's earmarks and in so doing increase the size of federal spending. If everyone playing the game delivers more pork than in the previous year, everyone "wins."

Except for future generations, of course, who will go hungry because we're eating their seedcorn.

It's much like a post I wrote on Sunday mentioned (and in fact I meant to bring up this point in relation to Rand Paul's backsliding on earmarks): Just as Democrats and Republicans can conspire together to look good to their respective voters -- delivering both increased spending and lower taxes -- with no one noticing except future generations saddled, invisibly, with the high costs of the conspiracy, so too can sitting incumbent legislators of both parties increase their personal chances of remaining in power (irrespective of which party winds up winning the most seats in Congress) by conspiring together to bless each other's earmarks and, in so doing, increase the budget.

All of them can claim a defense on this point -- "Well, sure, I voted in favor of my own earmarks while voting to cut everyone else's, so my intent was to reduce spending" -- but that is absurd, because in the end while legislators may "fight" to reduce each other's pork, in the end they bless each other's pork to secure a blessing in return of their own.

And thus the government grows, as today's special earmark becomes tomorrow's baseline spending.

Earmarks are a tiny part of federal spending -- that is true. The budget won't be balanced by cutting earmarks, certainly.

But the budget must be cut, slashed really, from current levels, and that means of course that current spending obligations will have to be greatly reduced -- and we therefore then have hardly any room to begin pushing new spending obligations.

If government spending is to be reduced at all, the understanding must be that it will be limited to the absolute essentials only, and perhaps a bit less than that. And any new federal spending is obviously, I think, not absolutely essential, because, if it were essential, how is it exactly we were able to get by so long without it?

Add into the mix John McCain's not-inconsequential point about earmarks being grease on the skids of corruption and the case against earmarks becomes stronger. No legislator compromised by sketchy earmarks will be able to take a hard stance against government growth -- once you're rented you're practically owned.

If Republicans are serious about cutting the size of government -- and I sincerely doubt they are, but that's what we're here for, to hold them to the fire -- then they should be drawing up lists of spending to be rescinded and monies to be impounded, not exciting new ways to piss away taxpayer dollars.

This is especially critical considering we pretend to be the party of free markets and free enterprise. Democrats at least have a theory about industrial policy and shaping the economy to its centrally-planned perfect state which justifies their attempts to choose winners and losers in the marketplace; what's our excuse for doing so?

We're not only pro-free-market (supposedly), we're also pro-localism. Federal payouts to handchosen local businesses violates our free-market principles, while federal subsidies for infrastructure and other government-initiated but wholly local affairs is a violation of our federalist principles.

Porking up the budget is not just a betrayal of small-government principles for conservatives, but just about every other principle as well.

I almost cannot believe -- and yet, still can manage it -- that after being given a second chance by the public and a mandate to restrain and then reduce the growth of government, our first order of business in the Senate is going to be clearing the way to increasing it again.

Two Opinions on Pork, The Right One and the Wrong One: Swamp_Yankee is claiming pork doesn't increase the amount of spending as it is merely directing dollars out of a pool of money already appropriated.

That's not really true -- today's earmark tends to become tomorrow's baseline expenditure -- but to the extent it is, Allen_G has a good response:

If you're earmarking, that implies that there was a mass of money sitting around being used for less than critical purposes. After all, you're merely directing money already sitting around being wasted on on less-important purposes towards more important purposes, right?

Well, if that's the case, if that money was sitting around being used for non-critical purposes: Cut that spending, reduce that appropriation, and impound that money to pay down the debt. If money is being wasted on nonessential purposes, do not get creative and imagine exciting new ways to spend it on more important things; cut it entirely and "spend" it on the most important project of all: Reducing the size of the federal government and avoiding a Greek-style meltdown in 2020.

An Additional Reform I'd Like To See: All legislators proposing any new spending of any kind (whether pork or general expenditures) should be required to sign their names to a Statement of Necessity, reading thus:

I, [name], assert and vow upon my honor that the spending I hereby propose is of greater importance than reducing the size and ambition of federal government and of safeguarding our children's legacy.

And make them sign that for every line-item of new spending they want to authorize.

And then we'll see who's a conservative and who's just a Statist wearing the red intramural jersey.

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 1500 words, total size 9 kb.

Because we're not as dumb as we sometimes appear to be.

In an e-mail to The Daily Caller this morning, CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee, California Democrat, wrote that both of the recently elected African-American Republicans, West and South CarolinaÂ’s Tim Scott, will be accepted if they decide to join.

She goes on to mention there have been Republican members of the caucus before, that J.C. Watts of Oklahoma declined (damn, I miss him). Whatever.

Well I think West was tweaking them a little, which is fine Congressman-Elect West, tweak away. More. Thank you. I am occasionally naive (and don't you find my naivete refreshing?), but I hope that his decision/tweaking pushes this caucus to obscurity in the media, it just becomes "less interesting" to the MFM.

Which it should be.

Besides, this tweaking is what I'm really looking forward to.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 10:07 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Everyone is talking about it, no one knows what's going on.

A mysterious missile launch off the southern California coast was caught by CBS affiliate KCBS's cameras Monday night, and officials are staying tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile.

CBS station KFMB put in calls to the Navy and Air Force Monday night about the striking launch off the coast of Los Angeles, which was easily visible from the coast, but the military has said nothing about the launch.

KFMB showed video of the apparent missile to former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Ellsworth, who is also a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, to get his thoughts.

"It's spectacularÂ… It takes people's breath away," said Ellsworth, calling the projectile, "a big missile".

The Air Force and Navy say they don't know anything about it which is not very comforting.

Fearless prediction...no matter what the truth, the delays in any information will lead to awesome conspiracy theories. Who knows, one of them might even be true.

Added: Cuffy has some context on the location and word from the ballistic defense folks that it wasn't one of theirs.

John Noonan is trying to track down info from NORAD and other sources, so far, nothing.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:35 AM | Comments (415)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.