I'll say it.

It's been quite an impressive week for J-Mac, who decided to re-clarify his position on immigration reform by declaring we have to secure the borders first before we take on comprehensive immigration reform.

"I believe that we can convince our Republican colleagues that we have to secure the border first," McCain said during an appearance on KFYI radio in Arizona. "There's no point of having immigration reform unless you can have the borders secure first."

Convince your colleagues? Hell, you couldn't even convince yourself John.

Kind of odd watching McCain fight harder to hold onto his Senate seat than he did to win the Presidency, but whatever. If you're buying, he's selling.

Last night Exurban Jon suggested that "by week's end, McCain will join the Minutemen". Seedubya joined in with "By week's end, McCain will call Tancredo a"pinko pantywaist who needs to start getting serious about defending our sovereignty" Dave: By this time next week, McCain will have led ICE raids on 37 Arizona businesses yelling "FEDERALES" and "NINGUNA CERVEZA NO PAZ"!

And it was on.

What about you? Got some Moron John McCain Predictions™? Throw em in the comments. The sky's the limit.

Bonus Seedub below the thingy: more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:01 PM | Comments (85)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

The left claims "there is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Well, there are fewer of them than there were.

The joint forces quickly followed that up with a morning raid the following day in which insurgent leader Ahmed al-Obeidi was killed in the northern province of Ninevah,

Maj Gen Qassim al-Moussawi, an Iraqi military spokesman, said Obeidi was in charge of al-Qaida in Iraq's operations in the provinces of Kirkuk, Salahuddin and Ninevah.

Kirkuk, Salahuddin and Ninevah the not-really-in Iraq provinces of northern Iraq.

via HotAir headlines

* ok, a third guy, not the number 3 guy. who is now the number 1 guy I guess. For now.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:21 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday I brought you the story of everyone's favorite purchaser of cows, Kenyan runner Robert Cheruiyot, the winner of this year's Boston Marathon.

Today it turns out that the legitimacy of Mr. Cheruiyot's ascension to the pinnacle of the running world is under a cloud of suspicion and doubt. Apparently, Mr. Cheruiyot may not have strictly adhered to the requirements of road racing in acheiving his impressive win.

Why does this story seem so familiar??? For the life of me, I can't think of anything that this controversy even remotely resembles. Little help here, peeps.

WBZ-TV in Boston aired the footage Monday night, hours after Cheruiyot won the 26.2-mile race in a record 2 hours, 5 minutes, 52 seconds. It showed the Kenyan running out of the pack and onto a sidewalk before coming back onto the street in front.

Organizers say there are no sidelines in road racing, and as long as he wasn't cutting any corners, it's OK.

In 1980, Rosie Ruiz was disqualified for skipping part of the Boston Marathon course after claiming the title.

What is it about you haters out there, always trying to strip an overachieving Kenyan of his life's major, historic accomplishment by citing the most tenuous of legal technicalities? It's like you were all at Selma in 1965 trying to strip the Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars off of everyone crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge, for goodness sakes.

You wacky, wacky, marathon win deniers. Imma come up with a catchy name for all of you objecting to this win (does Conversirthers work? how about CheruiNOT-ers?) and see if I don't get me some of that sweet, sweet, newfound respectability that others find so appealing.

Never having had any respectability, I'm not certain what the fuss is all about, after all. But it got Kathleen Parker a Pulitzer, and I understand that comes with cash money. And who couldn't use a little cash right now?

In the meantime, I'm going to go back to trying to figure out what this story reminds me of. It's right on the tip of my tongue. I hate when this happens.

UPDATE: Commenter "sifty" suggests designating all of those who would strip Mr. Cheriuyot of his win as "raceists".

I like that suggestion. Not enough to share the Pulitzer with you, sifty, but enough to give you a front page mention. Thanks!

Posted by: Jack M. at 02:51 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems so.

Note: Comcast denies involvement, but Snider is has himself a lot of connections to Comcast. Hence my confusion.

Looks like a mix of Red Eye and red meat.

Flyers' owner Ed Snider has just picked up another right-winger.

This one won't help Philadelphia finally win another Stanley Cup, though.

...

The Snider-funded RightNetwork - with a looser approach to conservative topics, including a comedy show and a jocular front man in sitcom star Kelsey Grammer - is hoping to come to your cable box as early as this summer.

...

"We're creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who've been looking for an entertainment network and media channel that reflects their point of view," Snider said. "RightNetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and connect with the American majority about what's right in the world."

...

As for programming, the proposed lineup on RightNetwork - as posted for a preview on its Web site, rightnetwork.com - is slanted more toward what could be called "conservative entertainment" and away from the newsier approach of Fox.

There is, for example, a right-leaning comedy show, "Evan Sayet's Right 2 Laugh," with standup comics making jokes about President Obama's teleprompter and buying an Obama coin "because any collector will tell you a coin is worth a lot more when there's an obvious mistake on it."

There's also a reality show called "Running" about six novice conservative candidates, and "Politics and Poker" with bombastic new-media star Andrew Breitbart.

Interesting.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (412)
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

The deuce you say! But I heard him say ten times he would never run as an independent!

Check out the AP's headline, which casts Crist's self-serving, vow-breaking decision as a heroic stance against DC insiders:

Ignoring DC pressure, Crist mulls independent run

"Ignoring pressure" from the DC establishment? Affirming his "independent" integrity? And here I thought it was just because he was getting his lightweight ass kicked up and down the Florida panhandle.

Thanks, AP, for setting me right!

Gov. Charlie Crist said Monday he may quit his GOP primary race and run for the Senate as an independent, his once-promising career threatened by fast-rising conservative opposition.

After weeks of insisting he would stay in the Aug. 24 primary, Crist told The Associated Press in a phone interview he intends to be "very, very thoughtful and deliberate" as he makes up his mind. The governor trails conservative rival Marco Rubio by double-digit margins in public polls after holding a huge lead at the outset.

The race is being closely watched nationally as a test of the strength of the tea party movement vs. more moderate Republicans. Rubio rose from obscurity to a favorite among conservatives with strong support from tea party activists. Crist, a moderate leader in one of the nation's largest states, had been considered a potential GOP presidential or vice presidential nominee.

For a long time, liberals have insisted that it is conservatives' social positions that make them extreme and unpalatable. And I include David Frum and Kathleen Parker types as "liberals" there -- I keep hearing this claim that if only we'd jettison the social cons, our party would no longer be racist and icky. The establishment media -- our country's self-appointed arbiters of permissible political thought -- have assured us that it's not fiscal conservatism they find extreme, just that awful Bible-humping social type.

Apparently not, because the AP sets up a distinction between the fiscally-animated Tea Partiers and "more moderate" Republicans.

You'd almost think they despise us -- all of us -- and are simply attempting to create wedges between us or something.

Crist said he intends to listen to Florida residents as he decides his political future. He must make up his mind by the April 30 deadline to get on the ballot...

Yes, he'll be listening to "Florida residents," and certainly not his paid pollsters and political consultants.

He's doing this for you.

As with his best bud Obama -- you ought to be thanking him.

McCain: I Won't Support Crist If He Jumps Independent: "I support Republicans."

He says that now, but if Hayworth starts outpolling him I suspect he might go a little Maverick as regards his promises.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (123)
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama has a problem, and its a big one. GS donated almost a million bucks to teh One during 2008, and ~$400K to Hillary. McLame only tapped GS for $230K in 2008. McLame, Romney, and Rudy combined only tapped GS for $576K, so its pretty clear who GS was backing in 2008.

Now, one doesn't spread around $1.4M in campaign contributions without expecting a little quid pro for their quo, which is Obama's problem.

Does he give back the ~$1M in donation money, thus demonstrating to any future corporate contributors that he won't stay bought (my definition of an honest politician/judge is one who stays bought), or is he an unreliable weasel that you can only rent by the hour like rooms at a hot sheets motel,where clean sheets are going to cost extra? more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 11:33 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

As Dan Riehl notes -- That is what she's saying, right?

If Tea Partiers' rational-faculties-compromising anger is creating a climate of fear and hatred, what the hell is she doing urging her supporters to do likewise?

"Speaking of the ‘tea party' people, I think it's great that they are active and excited and ready to go," she said. "My question to you is are you ready to go toe-to-toe with them, cup by cup by cup? I am."

"Toe to toe" is an obvious reference to violence, being a boxing/fighting term and all. "Cup by cup" ominously suggests... blood.

Or I guess I just have this wrong -- liberals' venom and hatred is useful, All-American, and good, as we were told incessantly during the Bush Occupation. It's only the Tea Partiers' passions that are un-American and dangerous.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Yon keeps getting booted out of his embeddings, and he's yelling about it.

Laughing Wolf and Jimbo from Blackfive are both counseling Yon to take himself out of the equation, emotionally.

The dispute is over whether Yon is breaking embed rules, and therefore is being booted out of embeds properly, or if there is an unfair antagonism against him by the generals and public information officers, and if they're excluding him just because they don't want the war covered by a bit of a wildcard.

I almost never offer an opinion in these situations, because I'm just not military and haven't earned the right.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Because government knows better than you, you stupid, lazy slob.

The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.

The government intends to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to adjust the American palate to a less salty diet, according to FDA sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the initiative had not been formally announced.

Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.

Oh the government simply wants to "adjust the American palate" because it's good for you. No big brother here. No sir, not at all.

Food by government bureaucracy...what could go wrong? Obviously the FDA knows more about cooking than food companies which have been doing this for decades. The FDA has studies! All the food companies have is experience and feedback in the form of consumer demand. Only crazy, bigoted, anti-government tea party types would trust the people over government!

Just wait til ObamaCare kicks in and all sorts of bureaucracies can get their fingers into any aspect of your life that impacts your health and therefore the amount of money the government has to spend on you!

Don't worry, it's just a little freedom you are trading for the warm embrace of an all knowing government that only has your best interest in mind.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:20 AM | Comments (408)
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

First, let me follow up on my post yesterday on a blog report that Romney said he opposed repealing the individual mandate and the ban on pre-existing exclusions. RomneyÂ’s spokesman contacted Politico.com

“UPDATE: Fehrnstrom add that the mandate "should be repealed."

In a timely coincidence, Newsweek (via Hot AirÂ’s Headlines) has an interview with Romney all about health care. I think it nicely encapsulates the challenges he will face on this issue in the Republican primary and should he be the nominee, the general election.

(Newsweek) So you would say the structure you put in place in Massachusetts—exchanges, subsidies, and an individual mandate—is essentially a conservative structure?

(Mitt Romney) What I'm saying is that the right place for health reform is at the state level. In a federalist system we don't need the federal government imposing its will on the individual states. The federalist, conservative approach is for states to solve their problems as they feel best. We solved it in a way that worked in our state on a bipartisan basis. Out of 200 legislators, only two voted no. And other states can solve it in the way that they feel best.
Â…
(NW)Would you have ever expected, when you were putting the bill together in Massachusetts, that five years down the line members of your own party would be comparing what you did to socialism? Does the reaction surprise you?

(MR)Well, the whole health-care debate has become highly politicized. During the 2008 election, [out of] the 14 debates, [in] 12 of them, health care was raised, and I described our Massachusetts plan and defended that plan. There was very little energy or passion around that issue. But because of Obamacare, it's been politicized.

(NW)How so?

(MR)I think that some Republicans believe that what we did in Massachusetts has to be decried in order to justify their criticism of Obamacare. But in my view, they're wrong. We're better off pointing out those things about Obamacare that we don't like instead.

(NW)What don't you like?

(MR)What we don't like is the intrusion of the federal government on the rights of states. We don't like raising taxes. We don't like the cuts in Medicare Advantage. And we don't like the price controls.

ThereÂ’s quite a bit more and itÂ’s well worth the time to read it all. Like him or not (and I tend to like Romeny more than some), he's going to be a factor in the 2012 Republican primary and this is going to be a major issue for him to deal with, it's worth reading his version of the story.

Federalism is a concept near and dear to my heart (and I imagine many of you as well). Problem is, it’s not exactly one most people are familiar with and it doesn't represent a ‘get out of jail free card’ for Romney on the matter. Yes, the states should be the laboratories of democracy but the success or failure of those experiments are going to be part of the judgment voters make about a governor when they run for President. To simply say, “hey, let’s not attack what I created in my state, let’s only talk about Obama’s plan” isn’t going to cut it. The media won't and his opponents sure as hell aren't going to give him a pass on it and focus only on Obama.

While I think (hope) ObamaCare is going to be a central issue in Â’12, it wonÂ’t be the only one. A federalist defense of Massachusetts health care system and RomneyÂ’s central role in creating it, is one that is going to require a fair bit of nuanced thinking on the part of most voters. Presidential elections are often decided on the broad strokes and there simply isnÂ’t a broad stroke differentiation to be made between the two plans. There may be some wonkish differences between RomneyÂ’s scheme of mandates, exchanges and subsidies when compared to ObamaÂ’s scheme of mandates, exchanges and subsidies but most people arenÂ’t going to see them. When Romney says what he supported as Governor is different than what heÂ’d support as President, he is asking voters to take a pretty big leap.

The very need for this type of interview, which Romney is going to have to give thousands of times in the next few years, illustrates his biggest problemÂ…itÂ’s almost impossible for him to talk about the faults of ObamaCare without first spending 20 minutes explaining and defending the Massachusetts plan. And then when he does get around to attacking ObamaCare he will be forced to go over it all again, point by point. Add to that something not covered in the interviewÂ…the Mass plan has been a disaster (Romney argues that the Democrats screwed it up by overriding his vetoes. More layers of nuance he has to defend on and voters have to buy into.) and you see what he is up against from a message standpoint.

The biggest hurdle for Romney is these arenÂ’t factual questions (and getting people to believe those answers can be hard enough). Fairly or not, correctly or not, there are simply going to be a lot of people who will never accept his distinctions and explanations. People are going to make value judgments on RomneyÂ’s record on health care. Unfortunately for him, at the moment it seems people favor those who value repeal and who never bought into this type of scheme in the first place.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:42 AM | Comments (369)
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.