Humpity humpity hump day to you too! more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:13 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Allah"Big Pimpin' with the Phat Blog Cash"pundit from Hot Air, here's an exchange on "Morning Joe" between Rudy & Zsa Zsa Huffington. A bit like a "Ivory Coast National Guard Reserves vs. US Marine Recon" deathmatch, but like many of my particular political persuasion, I will NEVER turn away from watching Arianna take a verbal beating. Hell, it gets so bad towards the end that I was half expecting Zsa Zsa to say something positive about ferrets.

(you know what, I think I need to thank AP for introducing me to the old Rudy bit from his call in show. Either he or Ace brought it to my attention originally, and it just keeps getting funnier every time I hear it.)

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 06:40 PM | Comments (150)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

In the gubernatorial race, the emerging narrative is that GOP frontrunner Meg Whitman is buying the governor's mansion. She has given her own campaign $59 million dollars. Tom Steve* Poizner, her GOP competition, has contributed $19 million to his own campaign, but it doesn't seem to be gaining any ground on Whitman. [*As a commenter notes, Poizner is so far behind, I forgot his first name. -GM]

The latest poll has GOP voters picking Whitman over Poizner by 60 percent to 20 percent. California voters choose Whitman over Dem competition Jerry Brown by 44 percent to 41 percent while Brown leads Poizner by 53 percent to 22 percent.

In the race for Barbara Boxer's seat, the California Secretary of State has the list of 13 official challengers (PDF). Boxer will face blogger Mickey Kaus in the June Democratic primary.

All three GOP candidates are within the margin when matched up against Boxer, though Tom Campbell does slightly better than Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. The NRSC has said that it will remain neutral in the GOP primary.

For a while, Campbell had a bit of a lead on Fiorina among GOP voters, but that has eroded in recent days as the National Organization for Marriage assails him for his pro-gay marriage stance.

Campbell has also been taking fire over his anti-Israel positions and recent revelations that a convicted terrorist raised funds for his 2000 campaign. The belief that he doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam led GOProud to repudiate Campbell's overtures to gay voters.

Meanwhile, Fiorina's old boss, Senator John McCain, endorsed her today, saying he thinks she's "eminently qualified" to be a U.S. senator.

Staunch conservative DeVore trails in the race only attracting single digits from GOP primary voters.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:47 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 282 words, total size 3 kb.

Good evening all M&Ms.
Also don't forget about the job bank at the AoSHQ yahoo group.

Slo-mo Inside View of a 4-Stroke Engine
In case you've ever wondered what's really happening inside your engine. Can you identify all 4 of the strokes? And I was kind of surprised how non-explosive the ignition was.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:39 PM | Comments (798)
Post contains 340 words, total size 4 kb.

That must have hurt. (Now linked to complete article.)

They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values.

Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

As that Gallup breakdown just showed, the Tea Party is "mostly white" (79%) in much the same way America is "mostly white" (75%).

Thanks to William Amos.

Posted by: Ace at 02:17 PM | Comments (494)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Over on CNN, just a few minutes ago.

Asked about Steele's claim that he had a narrower margin of error permitted to him, due to his race, than, say, the white chief of staff he just fired, Barbour responded, “I just don’t see that. I don’t think that way.”

Tepid stuff, I guess.

By the way, check out Steele's letter announcing his firing of Ken McKay:

""The buck stops with me. That is why I have made this change in management."

The buck stops with me, so I am now forced to push an underling on to his sword.

And now the goddamned race card.

Really?

Ken Blackwell Rips Steele. Awesome.

Kenneth Blackwell, a former Ohio secretary of state who ran against Michael Steele for RNC chairman, said Steele’s argument that he has a “smaller margin of error” beacuse he’s black is “ridiculous.”

“This notion that this disturbing pattern of gaffes and missteps is now being criticized solely because he is black, and that Barack Obama is being criticized for his big-government power grab solely because he is black — that is nonsense,” Blackwell told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto.

“And here’s a person who is leading Lincoln’s party, and now he’s falling back on this crutch of race. That’s disturbing,” Blackwell added.

A fuller Barbour quote at the link, too.

Someone suggested just replacing Steele with Ken Blackwell. My only hesitation about that is that it's soooo obvious.

But, 1, who cares?, and 2, it's not altogether obvious we're just cushioning the PR blow by replacing a black guy (with a small margin for error) with another black guy (presumably with a larger margin of error). Blackwell held high elected office (Secretary of State, Ohio) and has a good amount of goodwill and respect in the party, and does sort of seem to be campaigning for Steele's job; hey, what the hell, why not give it to him?

And look, if people are so worried about Steele's race (and, actually, I sort of think if you're too worried about Steele being black that's likely because you aren't terribly confident about your own colorblindness; I've personally got no problem firing a black guy) then, okay, here, you weak-ass bitches: Here's another black guy for you. Better?

Actually, it would lead to a chorus of obvious jokes ("... proving the GOP can't tell one black guy from another") but who cares? Steele's firing is a three day story.

Except on Keith Olbermann... but no one watches Keith Olbermann.

Posted by: Ace at 02:00 PM | Comments (110)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

Ace writes a compelling piece below about Obama's decision to change the terms on which our nation would defend itself with our nuclear arsenal. It is one, however, with which I disagree in substance, if not scope.

While I perfectly understand Ace's sentiment that (paraphrasing) "Obama really didn't change the rules because no one believed we were ever going to use them anyway", I believe that this sentiment fails to consider several important points.

So, I am going to lay out my own thoughts in the hopes that it will spur some discussion. Who is right? Obama? Ace? Me? All of the above? None of the above? more...

Posted by: Jack M. at 01:18 PM | Comments (186)
Post contains 1333 words, total size 8 kb.

Let us stipulate that Hamid Karzai is a less than stellar leader, what with the corruption, fraud and all. Let us also stipulate that at the moment, heÂ’s the only game in town (unless, you know, things change).

Seems a bad relationship has only gotten worse since ObamaÂ’s visit. According to several Afghan officials, Karzai is talking up a very dangerous game behind closed doors.

"He said that 'if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban'," said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar.

"He said rebelling would change to resistance," Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.

Marenai said Karzai appeared nervous and repeatedly demanded to know why parliament last week had rejected legal reforms that would have strengthened the president's authority over the country's electoral institutions.

Two other lawmakers said Karzai twice raised the threat to join the insurgency.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the reports were troubling. "On behalf of the American people, we're frustrated with the remarks," Gibbs told reporters.

Now I’m sure Karzai would text us saying “jk lol” but this is not good. Yes, he may well be playing to his domestic audience with this kind of tough talk but it’s starting to get out of hand. Gibbs then upped the ante by refusing to say whether or not the US still considers Karzai an ally.

Right now there are tens of thousands of Americans fighting and dying in Iraq (along with allies from other nations) and Karzai is going to play with this kind of fire while the administration does nothing to cool things off?

While the military operations are continuing apace, the political situation, at least at the national level, seems to be deteriorating. Keep in mind that a central tenant of our COIN strategy is that military operations be seen by the population as being in service of the indigenous government.

From Gen. McChrystalÂ’s initial report on the situation in Afghanistan.

ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)Â’s center of gravity is the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population "by, with, and through" the Afghan government. A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution. This is their war and, in the end, ISAF's competency will prove less decisive than GIRoA's; eventual success requires capable Afghan governance capabilities and security forces. While these institutions are still developing, ISAF and the international community must provide substantial assistance to Afghanistan until the Afghan people make the decision to support their government and are capable of providing for their own security.

KarzaiÂ’s talk of joining the Taliban, no matter how insincere it is, only hurts that effort. It puts doubt in the mind of average Afghanis about how much to trust US forces and their promises of security. It also offers hope to the Taliban. Not that Karzai is joining up but that thereÂ’s distance between the allies and the Afghanistan government (such as it is). Time is on their side and this public feuding only shows the time they have to wait is less than they might have thought.

As one who has long been suspect that something can be made of Afghanistan this doesnÂ’t surprise me but then I didnÂ’t run for President on the idea that my election alone would transform the realities of a complex and dangerous world. Are there any allies that Obama hasnÂ’t gotten into a public fight with?

If I had to guess, and that’s all it is, I’d say Obama is fine with this flare up in tensions with Karzai. It will just make it easier for him to throw up his hands and say, “Look, we tried. We increased troops and while they did magnificent work, this Karzai guy is beyond hope. We’re out of here”.

Karzai , with his bizarre and provocative rhetoric looks to be setting himself up for that day as well.

It seems to me as we are seeing the beginning of the political end game in Afghanistan.

Added: This is how weakness, real and perceived, emboldens others. Karzai would never have pulled this kind of talk with Bush, McCain or someone of their ilk. He would have known that under a President like them America would be committed to staying the course in Afghanistan and he would have to live with that reality. Under Obama, he needs to hedge his bets, which makes things worse, which leads to increasing daylight between the two and so on, and so on, in a feedback loop.

Weakness and a telegraphed lack of commitment makes things more dangerous, not less. It's a lesson some of us seem to need to relearn every so often. Others never learn it at all.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:15 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 822 words, total size 6 kb.

What I've heard (and I hope this is vague enough to not break confidence) is that there is a group of GOP Senators who don't like Steele, and are trying to drive him out through leaks.

Here is my problem with that: Rather than standing up like men and asking him to step down, they're doing this crap through the media, through leaks, and the problem is they're not merely damaging Steele. They're hurting the RNC, which is supposed to be a useful organization for advancing conservative issues and candidates, and are in fact pretty much damaging it on a monthly basis. It's now basically damaged beyond use and irrelevant.

Now, having done so, do they make their move and demand his resignation, or call for a vote to force him out?

Nope. They don't want to because they're too afraid to fire a black guy. Which is an utterly stupid concern.

Meantime, they continue hurting Republicans and the conservative cause. Because their wild attacks on Steele are doing a lot of collateral damage.

Now, having created -- or at least greatly exacerbated -- a problem which now needs a solution, are they coming forward to force that solution? By which I mean they have created (or nurtured) a situation wherein the only good solution is the resignation or firing of Michael Steele.

If they do not move to implement that solution, we continue into 2010 hobbled by an RNC people won't donate to.

If they are just waiting like cowards for Steele to resign himself-- guess what, he won't. So what's Option B? Just leak more and hurt the GOP further?

At what point do these guys stand up and announce their intentions as Men (capital intended) and demand what they are agitating for behind the scenes?

I have no problem with an eviction of Steele. I have a problem with this pussy chickenshit leaking campaign against him which continues to hurt the party by damaging the head of the RNC while leaving that head in place.

If you want Steele out -- which you do -- then move on it already. Steele is not going to resign politely. The passive-aggressive leaking isn't working. Demand his resignation and call for a vote, and stop with this inept palace intrigue stuff where you're always trying to hide your hand.

We can see your hand. Either be men and drive him out -- take action, cowards -- or accept that you are cowards who will leave him in place and therefore accept that he will go on being chairman and you should stop the leaking.

Ranking the three possible outcomes here in terms of desirability...

1) Steele is driven out and is replaced by a reassuring consensus figure, someone with a big name and many more friends than enemies. Someone who appeals to both wings of the party and, crucially, has a reputation for being careful with other people's money.

2) Steele continues on, with his own reputation and the reputation of the party tarnished and damaged, but no fresh damage is at least inflicted.

3) Steele continues on, and the anti-Steele contingent continues damaging him and the party without having the guts to actually move against him and stop the bleeding.

Right now we've got situation 3. The worst of all.

Put up or shut up. If you don't have the guts or the votes to drive him out, than stop throwing grenades around and blowing up the November elections for us.

Posted by: Ace at 12:33 PM | Comments (212)
Post contains 602 words, total size 4 kb.

You know who they should run against? That lickspittle ponce Rutherford B. Hayes. Why, just the image of him in his spats and top-hat makes me want to give him some what-for with my mitts.

But that's Option B. For now, they're going with a slightly more relevant historical figure.

House Democrats plan to revive the political ghost of former President George W. Bush in their bid to retain the majority this fall, according to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the head of the partyÂ’s re-election efforts.

Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, on Tuesday signaled House Democrats will try to repeat their success in the last two election cycles by once again running under a change banner.

More at the link. The Democrats want to avoid a repeat of 1994. The AEI blog says they probably will avoid a replay of 1994-- instead, they'll get a replay of 1946.

Recent polls tell me that the Democratic Party is in the worst shape I have seen during my 50 years of following politics closely. So I thought it would be interesting to look back at the biggest Republican victory of the last 80 years, the off-year election of 1946. Republicans in that election gained 13 seats in the Senate and emerged with a 51–45 majority there, the largest majority that they enjoyed between 1930 and 1980. And they gained 55 seats in the House, giving them a 246–188 majority in that body, the largest majority they have held since 1930. The popular vote for the House was 53% Republican and 44% Democratic, a bigger margin than Republicans have won ever since. And that’s even more impressive when you consider that in 1946 Republicans did not seriously contest most seats in the South. In the 11 states that had been part of the Confederacy, Democrats won 103 of 105 seats and Republicans won only 2 seats in east Tennessee. In the 37 non-Confederate states, in contrast, Republicans won 246 of 330 seats, compared to only 85 for Democrats.

There are some intriguing similarities between the political situation in 1946 and the political situation today.

They point out some political parallels. There's another parallel, this one psychological -- the country was exhausted of Democratic rule after years and years of FDR's socialist tinkering. Obama, I think, has managed to exhaust the country in a mere two years of Democratic rule.

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (234)
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.