or did Kendrick Meek make a deal with the devil?

How else do you explain this happening in this, of all, election cycles?

. . Thanks to Libertarian Party candidate Alexander Snitker. At a press conference this morning the 34-year-old office supplies salesman announced he has met the ballot requirements to run for the U.S. Senate — the first Libertarian candidate in Florida's history to do so.

So in an election year when the Democratic nominee in Florida will be lucky to capture 35% of the vote, Marco Rubio, the GOP's nominee-to-be, now faces the hurdle of winning a 4 man race against a "Republican turned Independent", and a "Libertarian".

A four man race in which 3 of the men (well, 2 and Crist) will be splitting the center-right vote against an otherwise unelectable liberal.

Sigh.

Anyone else on the right want to jump into this race too? After all, if you don't, Rubio just might win!

And I guess we can't have that. Probably would get laughed at by the media and stuff.

Posted by: Jack M. at 11:14 AM | Comments (116)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

So, I'm listening to the EIB network right now (yeah, it's kinda a live blog) and a caller who used to work for Google called in to discuss how Google's search feature bills advertisers. Apparently, Google auctions off ad space and the highest bidder gets to have the ad of their choice come back as the number one result.

Why is this interesting? Because, according to the caller, people who sponsor, say a political campaign's efforts to fundraise off of the Goldman Sachs controversy, pay upwards of 50 (fifty) cents a click when people hit the resulting "sponsored ad" subject only to a daily budget agreed upon in advance.

Once the budget is reached for the day, said ad disappears.

This made me curious, so I entered the search terms "goldman sec" into google, and sure enough, a "sponsored ad" popped up at the very beginning leading me to a certain regime's online political efforts.

So I clicked the link.

Now, theoretically speaking, if I had done this 9 or 10 more times, I would have run upwards of a $5.00 charge towards the regime's daily amount. Meaning that i would have helped to stimulate the economy by divesting the regime of $5.00 they would not otherwise have spent. If, of course I had done that.

A few minutes later, I clicked on those search terms again. Whatever I was doing in those intervening minutes is none of your business. I may have been clicking madly on a certain link, and I may not have been. I'm not telling.

This time, however, the ad was gone.

Meaning that the "daily expenditure limit" for the ad had already been reached. Within 3 minutes of Limbaugh's mentioning it, the ad's "buy" for the day was over.

I wonder if the regime will send Mr. Limbaugh a gift for exposing their ad to a much wider audience than it would have otherwise achieved?

After all, you would think they would thank him. That's what you would think.

Now I'm not necessarily advocating that anyone go online over the next several days and continue to search out this link and click on it. I mean, it would be an awful thing if the regime were to lose a ton of money while gaining little to show for it. It would be a waste is what it would be.

But if you should be a little curious about the whole "Goldman SEC" thing, it is your civic duty to be informed.

That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: Jack M. at 09:47 AM | Comments (188)
Post contains 430 words, total size 2 kb.

In short, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff punted when asked by an airmen ROTC cadet to respond to rumors that the US might fire on Israeli jets transiting Iraqi airspace on the way to Iran.

“We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

The airmen ROTC cadet tried again in a more direct fashion and received a similar response.

Quite a bit of talk about this around the internets.

Grimm at BlackFive discusses why this would be an absolutely awful situation to be in for US troops from a personal standpoint.

Meanwhile Jennifer Rubin at Contentions notes the difference in treatment by this administration towards Iran and Israel.

I have a few thoughts...

First, I don't think this falls on Mullen. Not only is it a loaded question, it's one of policy that in fact is above his pay grade. Unless Obama has said something one way or another, he can't commit or limit the civilian leadership. If there's any ambiguity, that's on Obama, not Mullen. In fairness, there may not be any and that it goes without saying we wouldn't do that but without having guidance from above, Mullen simply can't go out and make that call.

Now, someone at today's briefing with Gibbs really needs to follow up on this. If Gibbs dissembles in this way, well, that's a whole different story.

On an emotional level, of course it's idiotic to think we'd fire on Israeli planes but there is one other factor to consider, we have obligations to the Iraqi government to defend their country or at least to discuss options with them.

From the Status of Forces Agreement we have with Iraq (pdf)

In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually
agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.

You might say the Israelis aren't going to attack Iraq but that's besides the point. There's no government in the world that wouldn't view armed military jets flying though its territory with out permission as an act of agression against it. This is especially true when you consider the history between Israel and Iraq.

That would seem to make it pretty hard for us to unilaterally announce we are OK with Israel using Iraqi airspace and won't do anything about it if they do. Yes, we'd be supporting Israel and our own security but if the Iraqi government asked us to stop this, we'd be betraying our obligations to them.

Now Iraq doesn't want Iran to get nukes either and they maybe ok with it. They will not want to be seen publicly involved in this in anyway, even with a wink and a nod.

Again, emotionally it's an easy call but there are a lot of factors in play here. Any Israeli attack the uses Iraqi airspace puts us in a major bind. Admiral Mullen was right to stay the hell out of that right now.

Added: A lot of people who will be crying out against Israel will be privately happy if it happens, some will even have helped behind the scenes. None of this however is helped by the the top US military official opening his mouth on the subject. This is a case where "layers" is the reality, not a fantasy.

BTW-Just to add to the fun, there is a report the US already talked the Israelis out of attacking Syrian arms shipments to Hezbollah.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:48 AM | Comments (219)
Post contains 745 words, total size 5 kb.

Last week Governor Christie urged voters to reject school budgets in districts where teachers refused to freeze their pay to help keep spending in check.

Yesterday, voters in over half of the state's districts did just that.

New Jersey voters took a stand on school spending and property taxes Tuesday, rejecting 260 of 479 school budgets across 19 counties, according to unofficial results in statewide school elections.

...

In many districts Tuesday, the governor made himself heard as 54 percent of the spending plans were rejected, according to unofficial returns. If the trend continues, it would mark the most budget defeats in New Jersey since 1976, when 56 percent failed. Typically, voters approve more than 70 percent of the school budgets.

...

Voter turnout was also high in elections that typically draw little interest. In Sparta, where turnout rivaled some presidential elections, the budget was defeated by roughly a 3-to-1 margin. Sparta teachers agreed to a one-year wage freeze late last week, but the budget still called for a nearly 10 percent tax increase for residents in the Sussex County community.

Governor Awesome 1- Democrats/Unions 0.

Christie took his case to the people, he made absolutely no excuses or apologies for what he is doing to get NJ's fiscal house in order. Democrats whined and cried, they even prayed for his death but he made his case, called for action and the voters responded.

These votes are going to do more than shake up school boards and teacher unions. The state legislators who are now fighting Christie are going to have to reevaluate their stances. It's clear Christie's victory wasn't a fluke, people didn't accidentally vote for him out of anger at Corzine. They are on board with his plans. This will strengthen Christie's hand immensely in the coming months.

National Republicans? Are you listening? This is called LEADERSHIP. It's working in one of the bluest of the blue states, you might want to try it sometime.

There are too many assumptions in politics, given the dire mess we are in, it might be a good time to test some of them. Personally, I've always thought Americans interest in cutting spending was more theoretical than real, despite what people tell pollsters. You know what? Let's give it a shot and see if people are willing to back up what they say with there votes.

If it can work in NJ...it can work anywhere.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:09 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

The President must be getting pretty tired of gays. He throws them a bone with the hospital visitation memo but they're still interrupting his speeches and chaining themselves to the White House fence. They want cameras because it keeps the pressure on him to actually do something about DADT, like he said he would.

The White House solution? Keep the cameras away:

Police chased reporters away from the White House and closed Lafayette Park today in response to a gay rights protest in which several service members in full uniform handcuffed themselves to the White House gate to protest "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

People who have covered the White House for years tell me that's an extremely unusual thing to do in an area that regularly features protests.

A reporter can be seen in the YouTube video above calling the move "outrageous" and "ridiculous."

The Park Police later allowed the cameras back, perhaps after realizing they'd gone too far. Or was it them? The Park Police is saying that the cameras were moved back on orders of the Secret Service. Secret Service says it was Park Police. Uh huh.

The six were eventually cut free and led away. The spent the night in jail; the arraignment is this morning.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:41 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

That's Chris Matthews' latest description of the Tea Party-flavored GOP kicking Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter to the curb. Also McCain, but that seems more like wishful thinking...

CHRIS MATTHEWS TEASER AT TOP OF SHOW: Also Republican purge. Arlen Specter is out. John McCain, Charlie Crist and Robert Bennett are all being threatened on the right. Is this anyway to run a party or run it into the ground?

...

MATTHEWS: Coming up what happens to Republicans who don't march to the right wing tune? Well they're getting purged. This is Stalinesque, this stuff.

Of course, "sophisticated" people aren't going to have anything to do with that:

MATTHEWS: Well I think watching this -- like all of us I study this thing – it seems like one of the reasons that the Democrats got 90 percent of the Jewish vote, for example, last time around for Barack Obama is not so much love of him or knowledge of him. It was fear of this theocratic, gun-toting party that begins to look more and more right wing, more and more Sarah Palin than it did two years ago. If this party, the Republicans, keep going over to Palin-ism and gun-toters and 2nd Amendment types, I think a lot of people in the suburbs, sophisticated people of all backgrounds, are gonna say, "That's not my party."

Wrong on both facts and analogy. First, the Tea Partiers are, according to polls slightly more educated that the average American and slightly wealthier too. Plenty "sophisticated."

As for the "gun-toters" comment, gun control has been in retreat in this country since the primaries in 2000, when voters on both the Left and the Right made clear that candidates coming out against the Second Amendment aren't going anywhere.

The analogy is also inapt unless Rubio is planning to put a bullet in the back of Crist's head. And the heads of Crist's followers. And pretty much anyone who disagrees with that too.

Matthews' Stalin call-out is why Godwin's Law was coined. Matthews is working the reductio ad Hitlerum with Stalin substituted for Hitler. Either way, same outcome: "You're like a murderous cretin who's so far on the other side of the moral event horizon he's irretrievably and indisputably bad. So shut up."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:27 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:09 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

In this article about Senators (from both parties) shaking down banks and Wall St. firms for contributions, there is a picture of the soon to be doomed Senator Blanche Lincoln along with Senator Scott Brown.

The article DOES make mention of Lincoln, but makes NO MENTION of Brown at all, ANYWHERE.

Rushed editing? Perhaps, but the article is long enough that it clearly wasn't tossed together in an hour and slammed out, so that seems like a long shot.

I don't believe in "coincidences" when it comes to things like this. Brown isn't even on the Senate Banking Committee, so he's nothing special when it comes to ObamaBanking™ reform -- just one vote out of a hundred. Why not put a Bill Nelson picture there? Or someone from Wyoming or Montana?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:05 PM | Comments (98)
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Tuesday ends and the boringness begins.

How Bronson Handles Tensions

And fears of mortality. This is from the 1984 movie, "The Evil That Men Do", where Bronson kills some bad people who did bad things in gruesome yet satisfying ways. Which pretty much describes most any Bronson movie. And it turns out that there was even an unrated version with extra gore and mayhem. The woman is actress Theresa Saldana who was nearly stabbed to death by a crazed stalker just two years before this movie was made.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:15 PM | Comments (843)
Post contains 592 words, total size 6 kb.

Transparency in eligibility:

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

Seems like an eminently reasonable law to me. And much more constitutional than using the courts to topple a presidency.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

UPDATE: DrewM. did the work I was too lazy to do; he looked up the proposed language:

"B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate's name on the ballot."

Looks like any documents demonstrating citizenship will do. Like a U.S. passport, a birth certificate, or a certification of live birth...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:39 PM | Comments (158)
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.