David "I Love Perfectly Creased Pants" Brooks tries to explain why his Obama Bromance went so wrong. Not surprisingly, it's everyone else's fault.

Brooks begins by explaining that he views himself philosophically as some fusion of Burke and Hamilton, which to Brooks means being skeptical of government planning but okay with energetic and intrusive government sometimes. In a world full of extremists, Brooks says this places him squarely in the center of American political thought. How convenient for him.

Our valiant, yet lonely, defender of the middle Mr. Brooks thought he found a kindred spirit in the Hawaiian Messiah.

The center has been losing political power pretty much my entire career. But I confess that about 16 months ago I had some hope of a revival. The culture war, which had bitterly divided the country for decades, was winding down. The war war — the fight over Iraq and national security — was also waning.

The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.

Of course they were wonderful. Did they not invite him to dinner with the soon to be President to be? DidnÂ’t these top notch chaps consult with him on all sorts of important matters? Why of course they were a swell bunch.

Alas, like a jilted lover who only found out after a months long moon-eyed courtship that the object of his affections is a raving lunatic, Brooks is only now starting to see the truth. Let's be honest we've all been there, on both sides. We fall for someone and think they are perfect, yet all our friends try to warn us, tell us s/he is crazy. "No", we protest. "You just don't know her like I do!" Then when the first blush of infatuation and lust fades we realize, wow, she is crazy. This is where poor Brooksie finds himself now that he has to look at Obama as a policy maker and not just a smooth talking, nattily clad, mocha skinned Adonis. But like a devoted lover, Brooks tells us that it's not that Obama is really bad, no, he just, he just tries too hard for his and our own good.

What happened?

History happened. The administration came into power at a time of economic crisis. This led it, in the first bloom of self-confidence, to attempt many big projects all at once. Each of these projects may have been defensible in isolation, but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.

One of the odd features of the Democratic Party is its inability to learn what politics is about. ItÂ’s not about winning arguments. ItÂ’s about deciding which arguments you are going to have. In the first year of the Obama administration, the Democrats, either wittingly or unwittingly, decided to put the big government-versus-small government debate at the center of American life.

Just as America was leaving the culture war and the war war, the Democrats thrust it back into the government war, only this time nastier and with higher stakes.

This war is like a social script. Once it was activated, everybody fell into their preassigned roles.

Here's the thing David, you, Kathleen Parker (who has a Pulitzer and you don't. Ouch!), Christopher Buckley, etc... are the only ones who are shocked to find out that Obama is really a big spending, government expanding, lefty.

Again, let me see if the romance analogy can help David. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:50 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 1398 words, total size 9 kb.

UPDATE ON TOP: Your individual state's voting information can be found on this clickable map, here.

Here is the current primary schedule by state (opens a .pdf).

Some of these are happening within three weeks from now, so it pays to boogie down and do whatever you have to do to participate.

**********
It would be a shame to lose these just from being ignorant of them, at a time when our side is more mobilized than we have ever known.

May

* Louisiana House District 63 - (May 1, 2010)
* Louisiana House District 93 - (May 1, 2010)
* Texas Senate District 22 - (May 8, 2010)
* Texas House District 100 - (May 8, 2010)
* Georgia House District 12 - (May 11, 2010)
* Georgia Senate District 49 - (May 11, 2010)
* Massachusetts Senate Middlesex, Suffolk, Essex - (May 11, 2010)
* Massachusetts Senate Norfolk, Bristol, Middlesex (May 11, 2010)
* Pennsylvania House District 20 - (May 18, 2010)
* Pennsylvania House District 138 - (May 18, 2010)
* Pennsylvania House District 147 - (May 18, 2010)

Keep an eye on more upcoming Special Elections here.

If you have a candidate to endorse, please share with us in comments.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:56 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy FiAF morons.

Friday's are always good, especially when the boss is out (yay me!), but if there's anything I like more than Friday, it's a contest between two competing futuristic weapons systems to deliver awesome death and destruction anywhere on the planet in less than an hour. Or a breakfast burrito from Taqueria #3. Those are good too.

The weapons are both part of a proposed system called Prompt Global Strike. A submarine-launched Trident II, and the air-launched hypersonic X-51 cruise missile.

...At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.

Bunk. Me. Am There.

But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 -- roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."

In the analysis there's some back and forth over how you use a ballistic missile without making the rest of the world freak out and think it's a nuke attack, but by the time we actually deploy this awesomeness Obama will have given away all out nukes anyway. So problem solved.

Thanks to Gabriel Malor for the link.

DOH! Forgot to link the NYT article from today that references these. Buried in the new START treaty is a promise that for every one of these things we deploy, we'll decommission a nuke.

See? Told you Obama could fix that whole "ballistic missile jitters" thing.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:52 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 368 words, total size 3 kb.

Friiiiiiiidaaaaay!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:57 AM | Comments (147)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

When I do periodic comment spam edit/cleanups, I'm going to be posting the spammer's IP.

Click here for a recent example

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Those with the skilz and desire, feel free to have some fun with those IP's.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:54 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

You can feel the remorse pouring from his very soul.

It's the regret of a guy who knows his job as House Majority Leader could very likely be kicked into "Minority Leader" status.

"That was not a good phrase, not a good use of language, it was not correct," Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said, adding that he did not see anything wrong with vigorous debating of philosophies.

Mybad.

He's referring to his joint op-ed with Granny Botox McGAAARHH in USA Today from last August in which they both smeared Americans who were vigorously opposed to Obamacare (suck it, Stewart!) They asserted the town hall confrontations with congressional Reps were a conspiracy, "an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Steny's words. Americans who raised their voices in opposition were "drowning out the facts", making noise to obfuscate the purity and clarity of their noble cause.

But now he feels badly that he didn't really read the thing he put his name on. Sorry Americans. My bad. Oops.

Question. Who in the hell is he trying to convince here? Surely he does not imagine the vast number of Americans he slandered are going to give a rat's ass about this pathetic dissembling. He's not trying to save his own ass in Maryland's 5th, he's safe there (I think).

Sometimes they're so friggin stupid they confuse me.

tip Cuffy

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:00 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Thursday M&Ms. And oh yeah Happy Erf Day too.


Some Really Weird Dolls

Okay this is a UK commercial for a doll and I guess the whole boy bodily function thing is funinteresting for the girls, but man this commercial is kinda creepy. Does it bother anyone else that Dad rubs the boy's belly until he gets a woody and sprays? Because I see this lesson leading to some major misunderstandings in the future.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:28 PM | Comments (798)
Post contains 519 words, total size 6 kb.

The first draft held during primetime, or as it's known in Moron Nation - Val-U-Rite Hour.

Who will end up where? Will Tebow get picked in the first round?

Discuss.

Update - NFL widget added for those without cable: more...

Posted by: Slublog at 03:33 PM | Comments (328)
Post contains 47 words, total size 2 kb.

In case you didn't read that hard-to-read motion...

1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

Blagojevich's lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing "a large sum of cash" to a public official. Blagojevich's attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich's attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.

Redacted portion: However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.
Redacted footnote: The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

Blagojevich's defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett's candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as "Senate Candidate B", is now a senior advisor to the president.

Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).
Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment

Redacted portion: Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).

Hmmmmm... Maybe that Blago skull was actually on-the-level, assuming Rezko actually said that Obama took a quid-pro-quo bribe.

One problem, here, is that why this is all very relevant to America, I don't see how it's relevant to Blago's case. He's being prosecuted for seeking payoffs, and he wants to quiz Obama about a quid pro quo bribe he got from Tony Rezko?

I want to know about that. But I don't see how that is any way actually relevant to the charges against Blago or how he concocts a defense out of it. "Everybody does it" isn't really a defense.

Oh: Brad explains the relevance:

As to why the defense lawyers are bringing this up, it's to discredit Rezko, who is apparently the star witness. It may not be relevant to the issues of the case, but whether or not he lied about what Obama said/did is extremely relevant to his credibility as a witness.

Posted by: Ace at 03:11 PM | Comments (127)
Post contains 759 words, total size 5 kb.

So far this is only on the GOP's Senate blog:

Senate Democrats Gather In The Rules Committee To Eliminate The Filibuster, Which They Previously Called One “Of The Most Treasured And Cherished Traditions Of The United States Senate.”

I don't know how serious this is. I thought -- maybe wrongly -- that it takes two-thirds to change the rules of the Senate, so this might just be posturing by the Democrats (and posturing of outrage and dire consequences by Republicans).

I don't know. Asking Jack now.

It's Possible: enoxo writes:

Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. However, it’s actually quite possible for 50 Senators—if backed by the Vice President—to have elements of existing procedural deemed unconstitutional.

The US court system neither will nor should rule on things like the constitutionality of a de facto supermajority rule. But this is precisely why you have a President of the Senate (i.e., a Vice President) and I think it would be perfectly plausible for Joe Biden to say that by specifying supermajority voting for certain purposes (treaties, veto overrides, constitutional amendments) the constitution is clearly assuming majority rule for other purposes. Then it would take a majority of Senators to back up BidenÂ’s ruling. And low and behold, a return to majority rule

Ah. So they're just going to have the Vice President start declaring things unconstitutional?

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (357)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.