Above the post update:

AP has called it for Sestak.

Sestak had a devastating ad that helped to dump the old SOB.

Not so much Arlen, not so much.

I wanted Specter to win because I think Toomey would have had an easier time beating him than Sestak but I'm plenty happy the bastard is gone. He was one of the worst Senators in history.

As I wrote when Specter announced his party change.

Let's not forget something very important....Arlen Specter is a hack. Not because he's not conservative enough for me, that's his choice. It's that he claims to be a paragon of virtue, the man who will do the right thing ideology be damned. Well, at the first chance he might lose his precious Senate seat he bolts to save his wrinkly old ass.

Specter is simply a morally bankrupt and cowardly man.

In the end the old guy sold himself and all he got was...well, he didn't get anything.

Nice job by Obama and Reid to get their money's worth out of their rental of what passes for Specter's soul.

In PA-12, the Republican concedes.

In honor of Arlen Specter's involuntary retirement, Allah pulls out the humpbot! more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:17 PM | Comments (505)
Post contains 606 words, total size 5 kb.

Evening all. While we're waiting for the primary results to come back, here are a few items to keep you occupied entertained.

Plus help a fellow moron out - if you know of an open job, add it to the job bank at the AoSHQ yahoo group. Especially if you're in the Los Angeles area.

Demography Is Destiny: A Tale of Two Civilizations

Here's what Greece's demographic distribution is going to be around 2050. And you can pretty much see the problem and add up the age cohorts to get a idea of how bad it's going to be. Assuming Greeks between 20 and and 60 will be paying all the taxes, each taxpayer will have to support 0.95 retirees besides themselves. Which will essentially cut each worker's real income in half.

To paraphrase Mark Steyn, the future belongs to those who actually show up. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:06 PM | Comments (1051)
Post contains 538 words, total size 5 kb.

Above the post update:

MSNBC is now saying the AP is calling the race for Rand Paul. Okay.

Paul is killing Greyson.

Updated results here. Thanks to "Doc" in the comments for the link.

Original Post:
Not as much fun as the '08 cycle, when the big question of the night was who would become each party's nominee for President would Megyn Kelly wear the naughty librarian glasses.

First up at 7 eastern is Kentucky. The big race is between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson.

I get Grayson isn't exactly in tune with this year's political environment but Rand Paul?

Jim Geraghty took a look at the younger Paul's foreign policy views and doesn't think they are out of the Republican mainstream.

Personally, I think going on Alex Jones' radio show (youtube link) is a deal breaker.

I think you can embody the values of the tea party movement but not go off that particular end of the reservation. See Marco Rubio for a great example.

If Rand does win, expect the MFM to become much more interested in 9/11 Truthers, especially the ones who support Paul. Note, I'm not saying Paul is a Truther, just that he seems comfortable hanging with one of the most prominent ones in the country.

Either way, I hope that Paul (who almost everyone thinks is going to win) doesn't blow up and cost the Republicans a seat.

Coming up later, PA Senate and the special election to replace John Murtha. And in Arkansas Blanche Lincoln is trying to avoid a runoff for her Senate seat.

I know a lot of people want to see Specter go down tonight but I'd rather he win by .003% and have to fight Tommey in November. Right now, polls show Sestak as the stronger opponent. I'd rather knock him out tonight.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:59 PM | Comments (186)
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Man. Did this ever bring back some memories of the late Michael Kelly.

The litany of lies, distortions, falsehoods. The gamesmanship we were fed by a serial liar, a self-aggrandizing politician. It was one of the most powerful pieces I remember from Kelly (and he sure had more than a few, didn't he?) (added link, from Geraghty's piece).

I believe you Richard. It's all so clear, and your outrage is so very understandable. I believe.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 12:45 PM | Comments (251)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

OK, that Obama administration part of the headline is a bit misleading. The policy memo was written during the Bush administration but it hasn't been withdrawn in the last 12+ months and it stands as official policy.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law — which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials — has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

...The 2002 opinion, known as the "inherent authority" memo, reversed a 1996 Office of Legal Counsel opinion from the Clinton administration. "This Office's 1996 advice that federal law precludes state police from arresting aliens on the basis of civil deportability was mistaken," says the 2002 memo, which was released publicly in redacted form in 2005 after civil rights groups sued to obtain it.

Office of Legal Counsel documents do not have the force of law but carry great weight within the executive branch and are considered to be the Justice Department's official position on a legal or constitutional issue.

Oops.

Follow the link above for a video of the State Department spokesman admitting he hasn't read the bill while defending the China kowtow. Good stuff.

Meanwhile, a member of the Arizona public utilities board sent a letter to the mayor of LA asking if he's feeling lucky.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that ArizonaÂ’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm ArizonaÂ’s economy.

To complete the day, Sarah Palin piles on officials who don't read laws before they attack them and weasel Americans who apologize to tyrants.

For all the damage I think the liberal opposition and hysteria will do them in the political arena, eventually they will win. Why? The courts will rule for the illegals and against the state. Too bad we live in a country where the will of the people is nothing more than a first draft for the real powers that be...judges.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:58 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

Right now the press conference is going on with a bunch of vets saying nice things about him.

Last night I set the over/under line for 'swift boat' references at 3 and took the over.

He says he got no special help to get into reserves, he volunteered by getting the Marine Reserves' number out of the phone book and didn't get any special treatment.

Says his claims of serving in Vietnam were 'a few misplaced words'. Really dude? That's the story you're going to stick too? Good luck with that.

How do you accidentally 'misspeak' when talking about whether or not you were in Vietnam? Give me a break.

He's doubling down and saying he's the true protector and advocate for vets.

He didn't quit when Charlie attacked, er, the Toys for Tots campaign* was slow, he ain't going to quit now.

Reporters not really buying someone could just call up and join the reserves back then.

Says it was "a few misplaced words. In instead of during". Oh BULLSHIT.

Says he was unaware he made those mistaken words. The chutzpah is beyond belief.

Says he will not apologize.

Why the MFM sucks...all someone had to ask him is "how does one 'misspeak' about whether or not they served in a war?" Did anyone? No. Why? He's a DEMOCRAT.

Your compare and contrast assignment for the day...a Republican Congressman cheats on his wife and resigns. A Democratic AG, running for the Senate, lies about military service and stays in office and race.

See, the Democrats can't be guilty of hypocrisy (the worst crime EVER) because they have no standards to betray.

*The NY Times story said he ran the Toys for Tots program while in the Marine Reserves in DC. I'm not snarking on that great program.

Original Post:
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says they are sticking with Blumenthal but what else is there to say?

The guy did serve in the Marine Corps Reserve back in the day, so I don't want to take that away from him. Of course, the Democrats spent 8+ years telling us that George W. Bush's time as a fighter pilot didn't count. Maybe that's because unlike Blumenthal, Bush didn't try and get deferments first. Or because Bush is evil and Blumenthal is a Democrat. It makes all the difference.

Last night when the story broke Dave in Texas said he didn't think the Democrats could successfully spin this. That won't stop a guy like Marc Ambinder of the The Atlantic is willing to give it the old college try for their liberal friends. (I changed this because I didn't quite convey what Dave thought or succeed with what I was trying to do with a joke).

The facts are not unambiguous. The best the Times has is statements where Blumenthal talked about "returning" or "getting back" from Vietnam, but there are plenty of instances where he acknowledges that he never served overseas. That said, he never seemed to correct the impression that he did serve overseas.

Actually, the facts are quite unambiguous....

Notice how someone in the bag harps on "returning" or "getting back" from Vietnam and ignores "since the days that I served in Vietnam"?

Now there's nothing wrong per se with being in the bag for your team. We here at the HQ don't pretend to be anything but conservatives. It would be nice if others were equally honest.

Hey, He's So In the Habit About Lying About This He Even Lies In the Press Conference Apologizing For His Lies [ace]: In this video, Blumenthal insists that he has "always" given greater praise to those "who did far more than I did -- men and women who never came back. Those who returned, only to be ignored by the government who sent them there."

You see the problem there? He's saying those who never came back did more than he did. And those who returned but were ignored did more than he did.

But what about those who, unlike Blumenthal, just went to Vietnam in the first place?

I think this is a habit. I think he has over the years tried to imply he went to Vietnam with sentences like this, without actually saying he went. And obviously on a lot of occasions he flat-out said lied and said he went to Vietnam, or "returned" from Vietnam.

This reminds me of Clinton's defense in Lewinskygate -- that he tried to mislead without actually lying... but actually did wind up directly lying multiple times. But he wanted credit for "merely" attempting to mislead -- his error was "merely" slipping up and actually, really lying when what he intended to do was lie by implication and omission and evasion.

That's Blumenthal's schtick here -- Yeah, sure, I sorta tried to mislead, but I didn't try to lie... and yeah I actually did lie, but keep in mind, most of the time I was merely trying to sneak a lie past you without actually committing to it in a way that could be fact-checked.

And because he's practiced at these misleading statements -- because he's now internalized them -- in discussing his lies about going to Vietnam he's still talking about those who didn't return having given more than he did.

Those who didn't return did give more than he did. Also, all of those who did return gave more than he did, because Blumenfield never went, and was on some kid of barracks duty in the jungles of Washington State (or whatever).

He's still kinda-sorta implying he went to Vietnam because he's been doing just that for forty years.

In between directly and unambiguously lying about going to Vietnam, of course.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:19 AM | Comments (337)
Post contains 971 words, total size 6 kb.

Are Republicans actually so stupid that this is even a topic of discussion? According to Byron York, yeah, some might really still be this stupid.

There's an intense debate going on behind the scenes among Republicans involved in the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination. It's about whether the GOP should to try to stop Kagan, because that's what Democrats would do in the same situation, or whether Republicans should concede that Kagan is qualified and vote to confirm her because the president has the right to expect the Senate to approve qualified nominees.

...But the bigger problem conservatives see is that the pro-Kagan statements put Republicans at a disadvantage before the confirmation even begins. "What Miguel (Estrada) and Ken (Starr) are trying to demonstrate is that the president deserves to have his nominees confirmed as long as they are qualified," says one GOP Senate aide. "The problem is the Democrats don't do that, and so you unilaterally disarm."

Indeed, among Republicans "unilateral disarmament" has become shorthand for the divide between two competing ways of approaching the Kagan nomination. "This debate is the people who have a traditional way of looking at these procedural questions -- 'This is the way it's been done and this is the way to do it' -- versus the people who say the Democrats have changed the rules and we should respond in kind," the aide says.

The rules changed during the Bork and Thomas hearings, though Republicans didn't seem to get the memo during the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations. After Democrats led by the likes of Chuck Schumer, and one Barack Obama, made it clear they would never support nominees like Roberts and Alito, the idea that qualifications alone matter should have died forever.

In my ideal world, Presidents would have wide latitude and support for qualified nominees. Alas, we don't live in my ideal world. In this world, you simply oppose the nominees of a President from the other party because, well, he's the President from the other party.

We can't have a situation where Democrats play to the death and Republicans simply die.

All that said, I'm still don't think that Republicans should filibuster Kagan.

First, I think it's bad politics. Republicans don't have enough votes to sustain it or defeat her. You can rally the base and fight the good fight, without starting a war you are destined to lose

Second, I think Republicans made a strong case a few years ago that filibustering Supreme Court nominees was an abdication of a Constitutional responsibility. Are there case where it might be so bad an extreme action is required? I guess so. But as bad as Kagan is, she's not Goodwin Liu bad (I do want them to filibuster his appeals court nomination).

To fight her or not to is not an all or nothing proposition, remember neither Bork or Thomas were filibustered. Republicans can score a lot of points by simply holding her views up to the public as best they can, laying out the differences between conservative and liberal judicial philosophies and then voting no as a group.

Fortunately, the fine folks at the NY Times have provided the type of ammo Judiciary Committee Republicans can use this summer..

Writing about yesterday's 8th Amendment case, the Times shows how excited they are about detaching the court from the Constitution.

The majorityÂ’s opinion was particularly heartening for its forthright acknowledgment that there are other sources of judicial inspiration beyond the countryÂ’s founders. The low number of juvenile criminals sentenced to life without parole for noncapital crimes demonstrates that states, judges, prosecutors and juries have reached a de facto national consensus against the practice, the opinion said.

And, braving the catcalls of nativists, Justice Kennedy also looked to international law to bolster his argument, noting that this form of sentencing had been rejected by countries the world over. Until Monday, the United States was the only country to impose such sentences on its teenagers; thanks to five justices on the court, the world now stands in unanimous agreement.

There are reasonable arguments to be made against Florida's law allowing for juveniles to be sentenced to life in jail without any chance of release (beyond executive action such as commutation or pardon) but those are decisions for legislatures to make.

I'd love to see Kagan be asked what, if any other sources "sources of judicial inspiration beyond the countryÂ’s founders" she would apply in interpreting the Constitution. It's not to trip her up, she'll lie like Sotomayor did about not relying on international opinion or laws in making rulings but to make it clear to people the dangers in letting someone like Obama make these appointments.

Now, I know Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the horrible Graham decision (among many others), was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Thing is, Kennedy only go there because the Democrats played hardball and killed the Bork nomination.

If Bork (or Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew his nomination) got on the court, there's no Justice Kennedy and no list of crappy Kennedy decisions.

Well played Democrats, well played.

So yeah Republicans, fight the Kagan nomination. You probably won't win but you might land enough punches to hurt Democrats this fall. If nothing else, Republicans in the Senate need to make it clear we are playing by the same rules they are.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:31 AM | Comments (107)
Post contains 901 words, total size 6 kb.

Harvard is supposed to be the "best of the best", the "elite", right?

A Delaware man has been charged with faking his way into Harvard and duping the Ivy League school out of $45,000 in financial aid, grants and scholarships...

Come to think of it, our current president apparently attended Haaavard too and refuses to release any academic records. I'm just saying...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:49 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Des Moines CBS affiliate, we get this story of a migrant who surreptitiously invaded the state of Iowa, looking to displace hardworking Iowa Possums, Skunks, and possibly Raccoons and get himself onto the government dole.

In somewhat related news (roadkill varmints), Iowa's governor Chet "Buzz Lightyear" Culver was involved in a police chase when his plainclothes Iowa State Patrol driver responded to a driver's display of the "one finger salute" by flipping on his lights and chasing down the outlaws. No word from the aspiring Inspector Javert, but the driver of the other car did speak to a local TV station, on condition of anonymity, about the shock he felt when he saw Governor Culver emerge from the unmarked Suburban in the company of his preteen son.

"Sweaty Chetty" already has enough problems with his reelection bid in November; did he really need to add this piece of Barney Fife performance art to the video footage available to the Republican nominee? Nope, but when presented with "bad" and "OMIGOD, that's really ****ing stupid" choices, Chet can be relied upon to choose the worst option available to him.

Honest to God, if we weren't already idiots for repeatedly sending Harkin back to the Senate, reelecting Culver as Governor would seal the deal & make us the official laughing stock of the midwest......and when Minnesota's junior senator is Al Freakin Franken, that's a pretty big distinction.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 08:26 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Wouldn't it just save everyone a lot of time and effort if the UK simply ditched the Church of England, have everyone convert to Islam and adopt Sharia law?

An Al Qaeda operative arrested in a high profile terror swoop won the right to stay in Britain today because he would be in danger if he returned to his native Pakistan.

Abid Naseer, the alleged ringleader of an alleged plot to bomb Manchester, won an appeal against deportation alongside fellow Pakistani national Ahmad Faraz Khan despite a court accepting that both are a threat to the country.

Mr Justice Mitting, in a written ruling, said: “For the reasons stated, we are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the UK and that... it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported.”

He added that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in London was allowing the appeal because “the issue of safety on return” made it impossible to deport Mr Naseer to Pakistan.

Mr Justice Mitting said that Mr Faraz Khan could “safely be taken to have been willing to participate” in Mr Naseer’s plans but that his appeal too was being allowed on the grounds of his safety on return.

They are being held at immigration removal centres but are expected to be released later today.

A third man detained in the raids, Shoaib Khan, 31, who has gone back to Pakistan, won his appeal against exclusion. He can now apply to return to the UK.

I love the last part. One of the guys has already been sent home and can apply to return to the UK. He obviously hasn't been killed or thrown into some dark hole (unfortunately). Perhaps his availability to fill out paperwork and buy a plane ticket is testament to the fact that these guys aren't actually in danger when they leave the UK (again, unfortunately).

If David Cameron had any balls (ha!) he'd ignore this idiotic court order. I bet he'd pick up more seats next election if he simply said, "I don't give a damn about the safety of known terrorists. I care quite a bit about the safety of the British people and therefore I've packed them on a military plane to Afghanistan and will deliver them to the border with Pakistan."

Instead, these bastards will likely wind up on the dole. But remember, anyone who points out the idiocy of this policy will no doubt be labeled a bigot.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:22 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.