Yeah, it's a little early in the day to be stealing from Hot Air, but I think Ed missed the real jaw-dropping part of this story:

Today, an American newspaper breaks news of yet another scandal involving AGW scientists and e-mail — but this time here in the US. The Washington Times obtained e-mails sent through the National Academy of Sciences that show AGW scientists conspiring to attack critics:

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Perhaps the scientists should concentrate more on science than advocacy. In fact, that was the conclusion of several people in the e-mail chain, warning against getting into a big public-relations battle when the supposedly “settled science” of the IPCC has all but utterly collapsed. Even if one is inclined to the most paranoid possible perspective on the meltdown, a $50,000 back-page ad in the New York Times will hardly offset all of the negative publicity that AGW scientists have managed to create on their own.

Click over for Ed's well-taken points about the retarded PR approach being suggested and the lack of anything that can be termed "science" from these fellows.

But then come back here and recall with me that Paul Ehrlich is one of the most discredited pseudo-scientific alarmists of all time. In 1968 he predicted that population growth would exceed the resources available on the planet, resulting in decades of famine and disease. He conned universities and governments into thinking that hundreds of millions of people would die by the 1980s.

His error, though he refuses to this day to admit it, was failing to consider such obvious things as: (1) more people means more land being farmed, not less; (2) improvements in farming techniques; (3) people (outside of academe, I mean) don't just sit around and wait to starve; and (4) the market regulates scarcity far better than idiot pseudoscientists expect.

So that's the guy? That's the guy giving advice to the global warming alarmists?!? Awesome.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:49 AM | Comments (395)
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

An "anonymous source" whose name rhymes with Alm Remanuel is saying that White House advisors are planning to suggest that Khalid Sheik Mohamed and the other 9/11 plotters be put to trial before a military commission.

And by "planning to suggest" I mean, they're floating this trial balloon to see how much the ACLU will squeal. So far there's not been a peep from the Left, so expect the announcement to come any time in the next week.

Obama will do what he usually does: blame Bush for getting him into this mess, blame Republicans for not rolling over and taking it up the squeakhole, and then push it into Congress' lap where congressional Democrats will quietly curse his name.

The Great Obama List O' Fail and Impotence:

(1) Card Check? [FAIL]
(2) Foreign Relations (UK - Prime Minister Edition)? [FAIL]
(3) Foreign Relations (UK - Queen Edition)? [FAIL]
(4) Close Guantanamo Bay in First Year? [FAIL]
(5) Transparency? [FAIL]
(6) Lobbyist Ban in Administration? [FAIL]
(7) Foreign Relations (Israel)? [FAIL]
(8 ) Cap & Tax? [FAIL]
(9) Negotiate ObamaCare in Public on C-SPAN? [FAIL]
(10) Economic recovery? [FAIL]
(11) Bowling? [FAIL]
(12) Outreach to the Islamic World? [FAIL]
(13) Van Jones? [FAIL]
(14) Civilian trials for terrorists? [FAIL]
(15) ObamaCare? [IMPOTENT]
(16) DADT Repeal? [IMPOTENT]
(17) Amnesty? [IMPOTENT]

Frankly, that list can go on, but I'm getting tired. Let's just stipulate that Obama is the greatest Democratic failure on the national stage since Carter. He will go down in history as a placeholder between the Bush 9/11 years and the transformative economic and foreign policies of the 45th president, a Republican.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:30 AM | Comments (123)
Post contains 291 words, total size 3 kb.

It's off the main page now, but DCBrent (and several others) was kind enough to grab a screenshot for me:

The picture brings you to the article which has a giant head shot of Glenn Beck at the very top. It goes on to describe the supposedly radical and racist roots of the Tea Party, the incitement and paranoia of Glenn Beck and other "rightwing media" figures, and the infiltration of CPAC by radical agents.

The source of these claims is the credibility-challenged Southern Poverty Law Center.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:12 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

FRIDAY! Wooooooooooo.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:57 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Evening folks. It's all downhill from here.

Shooting Guns Underwater Style
Whether to defend yourself against amorous dolphins or Soviet frogmen, it certainly would be handy to be able to shoot your gun underwater. But would it even work? Well in this video they try just this and see what happens.

I was somewhat surprised that the pistols actually cycled and weren't destroyed by the high chamber pressures. So the good news is that you can indeed shoot finned and legged aqua-varmints if you need to. Of course the US and Russia came up with much more optimized pistols for underwater combat such as the APS and the H&K P11 that used special ammo for a longer lethal range.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:37 PM | Comments (674)
Post contains 406 words, total size 4 kb.

But here's the problem. Grivalja of Arizona yesterday said he wouldn't vote yes. (Corrected; see below.)

Now he says he just might and probably will.

President ObamaÂ’s message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: DonÂ’t forget about the uninsured. Second: DonÂ’t forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.

In a meeting with House progressives today, Obama made the pitch.

Speaking to reporters in the Speaker’s lobby off the House floor, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the President reminded them that “If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side…it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue.”

I asked if the message was convincing to those in attendance.

“It’s pretty compelling,” Grijalva said.

ThatÂ’s a significant change from his tone earlier in the week, when Grijalva said he was inclined to vote against the bill from the left.

Obama reminded the assembled Democrats that doing nothing would be politically disastrous. “To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill,” the President said, according to Grijalva.

That's a problem -- we might expect a half dozen progressives to flip their votes, too.

More Promises: Hey, If You Pass My Bill, We Can Use It As the Foundation for Full-Fledged Socialist Takeover: Telling those leftwingers they can use this as a step on the way to the public option or single payer.

Correction: I first wrote that Grivalja wouldn't flip his vote from no to yes, but now says he might.

In fact, he was a "yes" vote before -- he had decided he might vote against the Senate version of the bill. So he was talking about changing a yes to a no, but now is saying he'll probably keep his yes a yes.

Thanks to "Obama is Carter" for that correction. As he says, this is not a net gain for Obama, but instead a hold, where we had been hoping it was a net loss.

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 PM | Comments (256)
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Three injuries reported, two are Pentagon Police officers according to reports. No word on condition.

Commenter stuiec adds an update:

Washington Post says:

2 police officers shot at Pentagon entrance
Updated, 7:50 p.m.

Chris Layman, a spokesman for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, said the suspect walked up to the main entrance of the Pentagon at 6:40 p.,m. and opened fire. He hit two officers, both of whom have injuries that are not life-threatening. The officers fired back, and the suspect was hit. His injures are more serious.

Layman declined to speculate on a motive.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:45 PM | Comments (135)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday on the Brit Hume Bret Baier show, Kirstin Powers said that Nancy Pelosi would get the votes necessary to pass this Obamination out of the House.

Krauthammer agreed (but predicted it would fail in the Senate, on reconciliation.... but that still means it passes, of course).

Powers explained her prediction: Nancy Pelosi is good at this. She's done it before on cap and tax, for example.

Well... She was good at it. She has led her caucus closer and closer to political armageddon with each of her San Francisco archliberal moves.

Are they still willing to have their arms twisted by her?

It's not just that the Democrats are headed for disaster, which they can blame on the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. It's also that Nancy Pelosi will simply not be around much longer to grant anyone any favors in the future.

She had been Speaker of the House. She is no longer Speaker of the House. She is now soon-to-be-former Speaker of the House.

I've long wanted to post this interview with Charlie Cook. It's a week and a half old now, but it's still... ball-dippingly good.

NJ: If Obama has a communications problem as you suggest, then what should he do to reach out to the American people? Should he try to appear more populist?

Cook: I sort of reject the notion that there is a communications problem with President Obama. I think it's just fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning. Of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq. ...

...

And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn't worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn't a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.

And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we've seen in modern political history.

NJ: What do Democrats have to do to correct this?

Cook: I've spent the last couple of days talking to some of the brightest Democrats in the party that are not in the White House. And it's very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House. It's very hard. Are the seats there right this second? No. But we're on a trajectory on the House turning over....

The whole thing is worth reading, from his diagnosis on Democrats becoming bored with silly issues like jobs and the economy and the stimulus, and so doing a botched job to rush to get back to ideological issues, to Democrats, losing, finally, the South and Border districts they've hung on to for so long forever ("They're not coming back"), to his statement that the question isn't "Where are Democrats in danger?" but rather "What few places are they safe?"

At any rate: It is now conventional wisdom that the Democrats will lose the House. Not that there is an outside chance of such. Not even that it is likely. But that they will lose the House, barring some game-changing event and barring also some weird low-probability streak of winning a bunch of very tight could-go-either-way elections.

In other words, it is 95% likely that Speaker Pelosi will not be Speaker Pelosi in January 2011. Not only won't she be Speaker, she won't even be Minority Leader -- Steny Hoyer will take that position. The caucus will be in no mood to continue on with the wildly unpopular Nancy Pelosi as the face of the party. Even though the House is dominated by liberals -- they will not reward her for calamity.

So, with regard to Madame Palomino's arm-twisting: She can't offer people a political haven -- she has admitted that it's political suicide to vote for this bill, but wants them to slit their throats anyway -- and she can't even offer them personal favors.

She's a lame duck. She won't even have a leadership post in the minority.

She'll be subchairman of the Sport Charter Fisherman International Promotion Committee or something more in line with her abilities. Her jurisdiction will be limited to tarpon.

So what the hell can Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants promise or threaten anyone with?

Oh: Partly undermining all that is that Steny Hoyer claims to believe he thinks this bill is essential, too. But unlike Madame Palomino, who claims she has the votes, Steny Hoyer won't say he does.

Posted by: Ace at 01:48 PM | Comments (227)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

Most have been focusing on the parliamentary issue of whether reconciliation was allowed for the purpose of passing health care through the Senate.

A reader makes a damned fine point: What if there's also no will to do so on the part of Senate Democrats? What if the real plan is just to make-pretend a reconciliation bill will pass, to appease House liberals, and then blow it off?

This makes a lot of sense. First of all, the Senate bill is the Senate bill, of course. Among themselves -- and they have some loyalty to their fellow Democratic Senators; some, at least -- they have collectively agreed that this is the bill they can all live with.

So, right off the jump, they'd be changing the Senate bill from one they've collectively approved of to one they don't necessarily collectively approve of. They lack motivation to change much, if anything.

But let me stipulate there are at least 50 liberal Senators willing to undo the bargain made with their slightly-more-moderate colleagues and pass a bigger, pricier, more social-democratic reconciliation bill that moves the Senate bill closer to the House bill.

There's another factor: All Democrats, liberal or moderate, want this issue over with. Over and done. They want an exit strategy. Every day they are talking about health care is a day they lose, politically. This bill is not only unpopular with independents -- it's actually pretty unpopular with the nutroots true believers, who view it as a sell-out to insurance companies and not nearly Canada-y enough for their liking.

Democrats have viewed the possible exit strategies and have decided that among all the bad alternatives, just passing the damn thing is least bad.

Oh, that's bad too, and they know it. It's an unpopular bill. It will cost them. But they are counting on the hope that if they pass the bill, it becomes old news, and then they can turn to other issues.

Like what? I don't know. Anything else. Even issues that hurt Democrats -- like the Spendulus -- don't hurt as bad as health care.

So they are counting on the idea that it is easier to beg forgiveness than secure permission; that if they present the public with a fait accompli, they can say "What's done is done, let's move on," and at least some independents will be willing to be distracted by some other matter.

It's not a very good strategy -- but it is, arguably, the best one they have. At least they've convinced themselves of such. (Or at least a majority of Democrats have so convinced themselves.)

Now, as my reader notes -- given this dynamic, where most of the point of this is to take the issue off the table of active, live issues and quickly as painlessly as possible -- don't Senate Democrats have an incentive to intentionally fail on reconciliation as soon as humanly possible? To give it a half-assed college try (call it a mail-order college try), fail immediately, and just let the bill sit as it stands?

And just tell the House, "Gee, sorry, we couldn't do it"?

Bear in mind the whole strategy here is to screw over the American public and count on "Gee, sorry" as the way of avoiding political disaster.

So why can't the Senate also just say "Gee, sorry" to the House? Why not just have a short week of debate, attempt to "pass" a very liberal reconciliation package they know won't garner 50 votes, take a vote, fail, and go home, with their very own Senate bill, unchanged, as the law of the land?

A lot of House members want the Senate to go first on reconciliation, possibly because they doubt reconciliation will pass even with best efforts, but possibly also because they don't quite believe the Democratic Senators will give it best efforts.

Maybe we're fishing in troubled waters here, but it does seem the House has a big reason to doubt the Senate. Not only is it unclear they can do what they propose, but it also seems like they have little incentive to really, genuinely even attempt what they propose.

So, House Liberals:

Get ready to be screwed over, and have to tell your nutroots donors, "Sorry I voted for that bill you hated, but the wily, crafty Democrats in the Senate -- stone-cold Mensa chapter presidents like Barabara Boxer, Patty Murray, and Jay Rockefeller -- tricked me."

PS, I owe the guy who said this a hat-tip, but I lost track of where he wrote it.

Posted by: Ace at 01:13 PM | Comments (97)
Post contains 807 words, total size 5 kb.

Not a yes to a firm no. But a yes to a firm "I don't know."

Idon'tknowmentum.

Oregon Democrat, voted yes last time -- reluctantly.

Schrader's office said Wednesday that the congressman has not yet made any commitments on whether he would vote for the Senate-passed version of health-care reform. "Kurt's commited to moving forward on health care," said spokesman James Atkin, but he wants to study the bill first before making a commitment.

Schrader, who represents Oregon's 5th district, expressed doubts about the version of health care that passed the House, but he ended up voting for the bill

...

[T]he National Republican Congressional Committee announced Wednesday that it will "unleash a huge wave of robocalls" on Thursday targeting dozens of House Democrats, including Schrader...

The calls contain the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that is now a staple in D.C.:

"Even though a majority of the country wants them to scrap it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are planning to ram their dangerous, out-of-control health care spending bill through Congress anyway. WhatÂ’s worse, congressman Kurt Schrader voted for this bill the last time it was up and might vote for it AGAIN. "

This isn't necessarily a No vote, alas. If you are making an unpopular decision, it's in your best interests to have this be an issue for as short a period as possible. This cat would do himself a favor, if he's going to vote for this monstrosity again, to say he's undecided until he actually casts his yes vote. Until he casts that vote, after all, he's not necessarily casting his lot with the Obamanation.

But -- once again -- I still note that all the momentum is nomentum. We have yet to hear publicly from anyone who's going no-to-yes.

Alas, as I said, it's in the "Yes" voters to lie about it as long as possible, to keep their votes hidden as long as possible. We can imagine that Madame Palomino has a certain number of hidden Yes votes we won't know about until she actually calls the vote.

But you'd imagine that such votes would at least have to prepare their voters by indicating a move from "no" to "maybe."

Thanks to Gabe.

Posted by: Ace at 12:35 PM | Comments (113)
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.