Obama had Clinton over for a chat, then brought him to the briefing room. Then it got weird. Obama just...left and let Clinton have the mic for like, I don't know, 20 30 minutes or so.

Via The Anchoress, here's the video of Obama walking away. There are no words.

That was the most surreal thing. Obama said he was keeping the First Lady waiting and had to go. That left Clinton to vouch for the tax deal and relive his glory days.

Obama has just announced what we've all known...he's simply not up to the job.

It was equal parts funny, pathetic and quite frankly, a little scary.

Jake Tapper snapped a photo of the President and the ex-President. See if you can tell which is which.

Last thought: Obama (when he isn't running off to parties) says we should let the tax rates on the 'rich' go back to the Clinton rate. Well, the mid and low end rates were also Clinton era rates. Isn't Clinton saying, "hell no, don't go back to the rates during my presidency. Stick with the George W. Bush rates, they are better?"

Posted by: DrewM at 01:03 PM | Comments (452)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not sure who the victim is -- they're doing that thing where they protect the victim's identity, but this is sort of nonsensical in an incest case, as we know it would have to be close blood relative (daughter, most likely) -- but at least he waited until she was 18 to start having sex with her.

Horrifying.

His defense? "I don't look like an incest-freak pedo or anything."

Posted by: Ace at 12:06 PM | Comments (358)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

But, supposedly, he's promised to forgo earmarks and cut spending.

I don't know if he can be held to that promise, and I'm damn sure he'll try to evade it -- his allies on the panel will helpfully insert earmarks on his district's behalf. Out of the goodness of their spendy hearts, I'm sure.

This isn't good.

On the other hand, pork-cutter Jeff Flake has finally got a posting on the committee -- he had long been denied that slot -- and can be trusted to keep the team honest. Or try to, at least. We have to hope the Appropriations Committee isn't so inherently corrupting it gets him too in a couple of years.

What? Pork, the Meat of Kings.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:20 AM | Comments (83)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week, or two weeks ago, when I was arguing about Palin in the comments, I thought about writing, "Well, if Palin wants to convince me she's serious-minded, she can endorse Ryan's roadmap on entitlements/spending; but that's not really a fair bar for me to set, because she almost certainly won't do that. Too risky, too big."

Well, she endorsed it.

Out: Opposing Palin

In: Open to Palin

Put simply: Our country is on the path toward bankruptcy. We must turn around before it's too late, and the Roadmap offers a clear plan for doing so. But it does more than just fend off disaster. CBO calculations show that the Roadmap would also help create a "much more favorable macroeconomic outlook" for the next half-century. The CBO estimates that under the Roadmap, by 2058 per-person GDP would be around 70% higher than the current trend.

Is Rep. Ryan's Roadmap perfect? Of course not—no government plan ever is. But it's the best plan on the table at a time when doing nothing is no longer an option.

Let's not settle for the big-government status quo, which is what the president's commission offers. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make these tough decisions so that they might inherit a prosperous and strong America like the one we were given.

Further Thoughts: It is hardly a secret that I was not a fan of Palin's decision to quit the governorship, if she intended a bid for higher office. I thought she was qualified, based on her record, to be Vice President, but hardly overqualified. Still something of a novice and untested, the half-term as governor provided a limited credential that she was up to running the country -- should be called to, if McCain died, in a couple of years -- but still and all, in a perfect world, I'd've preferred if she had more experience, even for the VP slot.

For the actual presidential slot, I thought her experience was simply deficient.

Palin's supporters argued that quitting the governorship was something of a plus, because it "freed her up" to take bold positions on big important national issues. I wasn't convinced, for a couple of reasons: For one thing, she could still do her FaceBook commentaries and op-eds while sitting as a serving governor.

For another thing, I didn't consider her previous efforts all that "bold" at all. I agreed with what she was saying, by and large, but it wasn't bold, as it's never a "bold" move to preach conservative doctrine to a conservative audience. That's not to say doing so is wrong, or unnecessary, or cowardly, but it's also not "bold" by any definition of the term. A "bold" move must carry risks.

Well, this is certainly a bold move. The tradeoff her supporters spoke of -- okay, not as much seasoning or experience, but now with greater boldness -- is now actually in existence, and it's a fair tradeoff.

On the other hand, this actually makes her less likely to win an election. The Roadmap has a lot of third-rail stuff in it that will make it unpopular, and will be demogogued with glee by the liberals. That said, some risks are worth taking, and to me, the future solvency of the country is such a risk. Yes, by endorsing an unpopular suite of politically-dangerous but financially-crucial reforms, a hypothetical Candidate Palin would be at an even greater disadvantage to a pandering Obama; but if there's a possible payoff to a risk, it's worth it.

Also, this makes me think she's actually a little bit less likely to seek the presidency at all -- this is a sort of Suicide Charge, and more likely to be the move of an outsider hoping to influence the debate, rather than a future candidate.

Still, if she did decide on a Death or Glory run at the Presidency with the intent to push for some truly momentous (and needed) reforms, I'd be in favor of her, all things being equal. If she were going to run mostly as a standard, safe candidate, I'd prefer someone without her heavy baggage. If we're going to have a standard, safe candidate anyway, why not the more-electable John Thune, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, or Mike Pence?

But, if she's going to take a position that others don't dare take, then that recommends her.

I don't think I'm actually on Team Palin yet, but I'm off Team Anyone But Palin.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (543)
Post contains 792 words, total size 5 kb.

I didn't see this when Allah posted on it, but it seems the majority of scientists not actually part of this alleged discovery think it's awful science, thin in its evidence and obese in its conclusions.

As soon as Redfield started to read the paper, she was shocked. "I was outraged at how bad the science was," she told me.

Redfield blogged a scathing attack on Saturday. Over the weekend, a few other scientists took to the Internet as well. Was this merely a case of a few isolated cranks? To find out, I reached out to a dozen experts on Monday. Almost unanimously, they think the NASA scientists have failed to make their case. "It would be really cool if such a bug existed," said San Diego State University's Forest Rohwer, a microbiologist who looks for new species of bacteria and viruses in coral reefs. But, he added, "none of the arguments are very convincing on their own." That was about as positive as the critics could get. "This paper should not have been published," said Shelley Copley of the University of Colorado.

None of the scientists I spoke to ruled out the possibility that such weird bacteria might exist. Indeed, some of them were co-authors of a 2007 report for the National Academies of Sciences on alien life that called for research into, among other things, arsenic-based biology. But almost to a person, they felt that the NASA team had failed to take some basic precautions to avoid misleading results.

Allah wonders if NASA didn't have some kind of subconscious financial motive to rush something grabby out the door, stat, given cuts likely to be coming. That's certainly possible; scientists are not secular saints.

Posted by: Ace at 08:59 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

It is one way to look at it. I'm not sure how much I agree with him yet. He seems to start from the premise that tax cuts need to be "paid for," which is a contentious proposition on the right. But if we're looking at the deficit -- which I assume most are -- of course they have an effect on that.

Krauthammer wonders if the $990 billion in new (Chinese) money pumped into the economy through tax cuts (and... also more spending in various forms) is Barack Obama's re-election plan.

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies.

No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing debt. And this budget busting occurs less than a week after the president's deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.

Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way - mostly tax cuts - rather than the Democrats' spending orgy of Stimulus I. That's consolation? This just means that Republicans are two years too late. Stimulus II will still blow another near-$1 trillion hole in the budget.

At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

It's an interesting take, but there are a couple of points to make against it:

First of all, Krauthammer proceeds from the assumption that reducing the deficit is the highest priority among conservatives and Republicans. It isn't and never has been -- the highest priority is keeping taxes low, or as low as possible given the political situation. The deficit is and always will be the number two priority, and sometimes it will be number two by a wide margin. I hope that number two is now very close to the top, just behind number one.

But this has always been the case. It has always been conservative/Republican doctrine that lower taxes yield any number of desirable economic effects, such as increased economic activity which in turn leads to greater revenues which partly offset the costs of the tax relief.

The other part of his argument is a bit odd. He notes that the tax cuts will lead to a 1% gain in GDP and a lowering of the unemployment rate by 1.5% -- and this is a bad thing? Yes, it will help Obama, certainly, but we always knew that. Republicans taking over Congress and forcing him, against his radical will and socialist conscience, to take measures to improve the economy rather than undermining it would perversely wind up helping him politically.

But what was the alternative? Deliberately lose Congress in 2010 again so that Obama and the Democrats could pursue their economy-destroying plans? Sure, we'd be in a better position in 2012 if the economy went into a second dip; but are we really prepared to say "the more misery for the American people, the better for us"?

Krauthammer probably doesn't mean that (ironically, that has the ring of "I want him to fail," a line of Limbaugh's I'm sure he railed against), but that is an implication of his column. The American public voted Republicans into Congress largely to rescue the economy -- and rescuing the economy inevitably helps rescue Barack Obama.

That's a politically unappealing proposition, but there is in the end no way to do right by America without coincidentally aiding Obama too.

And as for the deficit-- Republicans have claimed over and over it would be reduced through reduced spending, not through keeping tax rates high. They have not sold out that principle out yet, although early evidence suggests that may just be a matter of time:

After agreeing to kill earmarks, some of the most conservative GOP lawmakers are already starting to ask themselves: What have we done?

Indeed, many Republicans are now worried that the bridges in their districts wonÂ’t be fixed, the tariff relief to the local chemical company isnÂ’t coming and the water systems might not be built without a little direction from Congress.

So some Republicans are discussing exemptions to the earmark ban, allowing transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water projects. While transportation earmarks are probably the most notorious — think “Bridge to Nowhere” — there is talk about tweaking the very definition of “earmark.”

“It’s like what beauty is,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “Everyone knows what a bridge to nowhere is, or an airport that lands no airplanes, or a statue to you — everyone knows that’s bad. It’s easy to say what an earmark isn’t, rather than what an earmark is.”

The issue has popped up most frequently at the Conservative Opportunity Society, the caucus founded by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in the early 1980s. During their Wednesday morning meeting last week, caucus members had a long discussion about how the Republican Party could redefine “member-directed spending,” as earmarks are formally called on the Hill.

Conservatives like Roe, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Iowa Rep. Steve King are among those trying to figure out a longer-term, sustainable way to get money back to projects in their districts.

That is the greater problem here. Not that Republicans have done what they promised to do (extend the Bush tax cuts), but they are already working on ways to not do what they also promised to do (cut spending, including, firstly, earmarks).

Thanks to TomM. for the Krauthammer tip and Slublog for the earmarks one.

Pethokoukis Down On Deal: James Pethokoukis is also down on the deal, for giving away too much to Obama, such as the cut in employee payroll taxes, when a cut in employer payroll taxes would have created far more jobs.

It's a matter of priority -- do we want those with jobs to have a little more money, or do we want those without jobs to have them? I think the latter wins in a walk.

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (70)
Post contains 1221 words, total size 8 kb.

It really is a civil war, isn't it?

We're operating without a federal budget, instead passing these "continuing resolutions", this one intended to keep the government funded next year. Late Wesdnesday the Appropriations Committee inserted language which prevents any funding for civilian trials for the Gitmo detainees, effectively preventing Obama from closing it down.

A few Reps seemed surprised.

But many other Democrats, including Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said they didnÂ’t even know the provision was included.

MoranÂ’s anger with the president boiled over in a short interview Thursday with The Hill about the provision and the tax debate held shortly after the Democratic caucus voted to reject ObamaÂ’s tax-cut deal.

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

It's almost as if getting your ass kicked in the mid-terms kinda weakens your political power or something. I don't know, I don't do this for a living.

Happy FiAF morons. Pass the popcorn.

ALSO: Harry Reid's version of the tax cut bill loads it up with ethanol subsidies, credits for alternative energy bullshit, mass transit, land use (conservation), and a "special" tax deduction for elementary and secondary school union members teachers.

In contract negotiation, this is known as "begging". It's a lot like how I try to get laid.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:41 AM | Comments (297)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Writing is easy: All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:56 AM | Comments (203)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Thursday all.

So How Safe Is Your Neighborhood?

Well you can find out by going to crimereports.com and putting in your address. It's a little bit disturbing to see how many crime reports get filed in even good, quiet neighborhoods. Luckily most tend to be minor property theft and damage. And so far no one seems to be tracking butchered hobos. So that's good.

And there seem to be a lot more sex offenders than you'd expect - in fact there's one living less than a quarter mile from the White House. I wish they'd include their crimes as well so you could get an idea of how dangerous they are - a lot of cities also put johns caught soliciting a prostitute on the sex offender list. It's a crime but I'd consider it a far cry from predatory sex crimes like rape or child molestation.

Some jurisdictions seem to have better coverage than other but it's worth checking out so at least you won't be unaware of all the Deathwish III action going down on the block over.

Oh and if you just want to see all the foreclosed homes in your neighborhood, go here.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:44 PM | Comments (587)
Post contains 588 words, total size 7 kb.

First shot: Get your picks in, there's a game on tonight between Indianapolis and Tennessee. I figured I'd pick it too, there's no harm to my record in getting an extra game wrong by picking instead of forgetting to make the pick.

Second shot: Here. The south end of a northbound Titan cheerleader-type lady.

Third shot: Supposedly this happened on CNN today. I dunno if it's the deal or not, I was busy at work keeping America safe, but if it did happen, somebody is gonna get themselves a talkin to.

I know. By now it's O-L-D.

*EffitallFriday, an important day for moron chicks to celebrate by flashing their hoohah at a cop. (I swiped this joke from LauraW from like, 3 years ago cause she funny) more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:08 PM | Comments (149)
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.