A stunning admission, if true:

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

Posted by: Geoff at 02:11 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

A couple of things I don't have full posts on but think they should be noted.

Following up on my earlier post, we find out (via Allah), that Sarah Palin is against the Koran burning stunt.

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. DonÂ’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We donÂ’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. IsnÂ’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?

Glenn Beck also came out against it today.

Next up, remember Phil "I Don't Worry About The Constitution On This" Hare? Yeah, that's not working out so well. One survey has him down 22 3 points.

(I read the table wrong, it's 3 points not 22. Thanks to "Boots" in the comments for the heads up.)

And finally, Obama would support Rahm Emanuel if he wants to quit and go run for mayor of Chicago. Say what you want about Rahmbo but a White House staff shake up leading into the midterms or a distracted CoS on his way out, can't be what Democrats are looking for heading into the bloodbath, er, elections.

(Damn, I just realized I used the same joke Jim Geraghty used in the Hare piece I linked to. I didn't notice it until I went back to look at the poll. To make it up, I commend to you his interview with HitlerMcFhuer's pollster, Scott Rasmussen)

Posted by: DrewM at 01:42 PM | Comments (232)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

The Libertarian path seems to be a dead end but it looks like she's not giving up yet.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski is strongly considering a mounting a November write-in campaign to keep her seat and could make an announcement as soon as tomorrow, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Running as a write-in candidate appears to be Murkowski’s last remaining option. The Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman met with Libertarian Party nominee David Haase on Tuesday to discuss taking his spot on the ballot, but according to a party spokesman, even if Haase dropped out, the party’s executive board — which last week voted against allowing Murkowski on the ballot — does not appear amenable to changing its decision.

Should Murkowski pull the trigger on a write-in campaign, GOP sources say she would face opposition from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The NRSC endorsed Joe Miller immediately after Murkowski conceded the primary, and the GOP committee intends to stick with the Fairbanks attorney and provide him with the full weight of its backing.

She keeps saying she's not a quitter but that's not the issue. You lost idiot. It's not quitting if you go home once the game is over.

Looks like Joe Miller is going to need some help.

Somehow the write in campaign is even more offensive than a switch to a 3rd party. As far as I can find, only Strom Thurmond ever actually won a write in campaign for the Senate.

This is just a woman who is terribly afraid of losing a title she thinks she is entitled to by birth. We really need to flush out the people in office who are so insane to think the republic will fall without their presence on the payroll.

Added: more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:16 PM | Comments (163)
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

At Hot Air, a pretty stunning statement from the RGA head.

Barbour acknowledged the difficulties businessman Dan Maes (R) faces in winning election, and the RGAÂ’s unwillingness to throw good money after bad.

“We have spent money in Colorado. Past tense,” Barbour said. …

“We practice what I call ruthless targeting. When we raise money from people in good faith, our good faith pledge is we’re going to use it where” it makes sense, Barbour said. “We don’t pay for sure winners. We don’t give to sure losers. We try to put our money where it makes a difference.”

If Barbour's saying that, I trust him. I don't know what the heck happened here or what it is that makes Maes so unlikely a winner (I know nothing of the race), but if Barbour says it, I guess that's a big thing.

Second look at... Tom Tancredo?

Posted by: Ace at 12:15 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Ooops.

Obama is giving a speech about the economy and attacking John Boehner but mostly attacking Boehner.

I asked on Twitter what Boehner's name recognition was, since as we all know punching down is a bad idea. Just as I asked that Philip Klein put this out on Twitter.

But according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner, the man trying to replace Pelosi as speaker, doesn't fare particularly well among the minority of Americans who have an opinion of him.

Fifty-one percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable view of Pelosi, with 33 percent saying they see her in a favorable light, and 16 percent unsure. The California Democrat's unfavorable rating has climbed from 23 percent in 2006 to 43 percent last year and 50 percent at the beginning of 2010.

"Pelosi's unfavorable rating hit 50 percent at the start of this year and has stayed there throughout the spring and summer. That arguably makes her the least popular Democrat in the country," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

According to the survey, 22 percent of the public has a favorable opinion of Boehner, with 23 percent saying they hold an unfavorable view of the Republican congressman from Ohio.

I'm guessing Obama is going after Boehner by name and not saying "Republicans" because Republicans are doing better than Democrats on most issues.

Obama says Boehner wants to borrow billions to give high earners a tax cut and that keeping the high end tax rate would come with "a 700 billion dollar price tag". He makes it sound like we are borrowing money and writing a check to people. Of course that's nonsense. If you want to save "700 billion dollars", cut the damn spending!

I guess since people actually do miss Bush, he's out as Public Enemy Number 1 and Boehner is in.

Boehner's camp responds.

The new and specific focus on Boehner leaves those in the minority leader's camp a little surprised, but read for the fight. "The fact that President Obama and the White House are so focused on what John Boehner is saying shows just how out-of-touch they really are," says Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith. "Americans are concerned about jobs, spending, and health care, yet this White House is flailing because it has no answers."

Obama says the GOP has never offered up any specific spending cuts. Brad Dayspring, spokesman for House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (who as the DNC likes to point out, is a Jew), is having too much fun pointing out what BS that is.

Video of Obama screwing up the state name via IreneFingIrene... more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:39 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 453 words, total size 4 kb.

It's one of those days.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

California? Ohio? Iowa? Check, check and CHECK.

The Iowa trip is part of a campaign swing that will take Christie through at least seven states beginning in California at the end of this month, where he'll headline a fundraiser for gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R). Christie is also expected to visit Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Christie adviser Mike DuHaime told The Hill the governor has had "many direct requests" from candidates to campaign on their behalf in 2010 and said the governor's early record of fiscal discipline in New Jersey makes him a top draw for Republican candidates given the current political environment.

"He's proven that if you focus on bread and butter economic issues, you can win no matter how blue the state," DuHaime said. "He's also proven that you can govern effectively even with a Democratic legislature."

Christie's focus will largely be on gubernatorial candidates, but his schedule does include stops for Republican congressional candidates in Pennsylvania and his home state.

I don't think he's going to run in '12, it's too soon. VP? Maybe.

Still, 57% approval for a fiscal conservative rock star in deeply blue NJ? Yeah, that's the good stuff.

Oh and the GOP winning a lot of state house races this fall? You know who that benefits? Mitt Romney RGA Chairman Halley Barbour.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:46 AM | Comments (55)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Like the creature in a horror film that just won't die, Lisa Murkowski popped back up yesterday saying she was "still in this game" despite losing the Republican Primary to Joe Miller.

After her discussion with David Haase, the Libertarian Senate candidate (who we first met here), it doesn't sound like anything will come of it.

For Murkowski to run as a Libertarian, Haase would have to step aside and the party would need to reverse its vote barring her from the ticket.

"It would be a serious flip-flop," party chairman Kohlhaas said. "And I don't think it's happening."

...Libertarian Senate candidate Haase said no decision was made at his Tuesday meeting with Murkowski. "Anything this important is worth sleeping on," Haase said. "And she's got a lot to think about."

Haase said Murkowski does have Libertarian tendencies but that her support for the war on drugs is a problem. Party chairman Kolhaas has also identified other Murkowski positions as a problem for the Libertarians. Those include her vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her 2008 vote in favor of the Bush administration's Wall Street bailout plan, which Murkowski has said she regrets.

Haase said he might be willing to talk to his party's leadership on Murkowski's behalf.

"If she convinced me I would do everything I can to convince them. But she hasn't convinced me. And she hasn't decided that she wants to run. ... She doesn't want to be seen as somebody that will switch parties just to get elected," Haase said.

Seriously, how much fun would it have been to be a fly on the wall during the Haase/Murkowski meeting? I would have loved to have seen the look on her face as Haase tried to get her to sign on to his "The Peoples Bail Out". Priceless!

Amazing what some hacks will do to hang on to the thinnest of reeds if it means the chance to stay in office. At least we can take some comfort in the idea she's not enjoying it.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:49 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

Let me just say up front that the guy who wants to do this is an attention whore who is about the worst advertisement of Christianity one could imagine short of Fred Phelps. Burning Korans gives needless offensive to decent Muslims (you know, the ones who won't riot and kill over it) and accomplishes nothing. I mean, book burning? Really? If that's what you resort to as part of your "argument", you've already lost.

But enough about some band of kooks, the much more interesting story is in the reaction to this "pastor" from the MFM and the rest of the left.

I find it amusing that people like Keith Olbermann are jumping on the bandwagon to oppose this stunt on the grounds that Gen. Petraeus says it will endanger the troops. Now I have no doubt of the General's sincerity (more about that in a moment) but I find it rather interesting that suddenly the left is concerned with the impact of a protest on the safety of the troops.

Imagine the reaction if a few years back Petraeus had said anti-war protests and the constant promotion in the media of photos from Abu Gharib put American lives in danger and hurt the war effort. Do you really think Olby, Andrew Sullivan or any of their friends on the left would have suddenly cleaned up their language and taken on Code Pink, International Answers and then Senator Barack Obama?

In fact, I recall several news outlets breaking news and winning major awards for revealing national security secrets. Where was the outrage then about the danger to American lives?

Funny that, huh?

Another interesting byproduct of this situation is once again the disconnect between the "Islam equals peace" rhetoric and the reality people see on a daily basis. If Islam is so peaceful and only a "tiny minority' of Muslims are "violent extremists", why do we constantly have to be so damn sensitive to pissing them off?

When the whole Piss Christ thing happened Christians were told to suck it up and shut up. I don't remember anyone worrying about marauding bands of Presbyterians going on a murder spree over it. But when it comes to cartoons or a bunch of loons (a true 'tiny minority) burning some books, the world has to go on red alert if it involves Islam. Why is that exactly?

Naturally, some are making the story about those evil anti-Islamic conservatives. How come they never see the story is actually about the violence in the Islamic world? Now personally, I don't think terrorists need any more inducement to violence, they being terrorists and all but it would be nice if for once a liberal could find a bad guy in the world other than American conservatives.

It's also interesting that this group of idiots in Florida is seen as representing America in the Muslim world but we are forever being told by Muslim leaders not to equate Islam with the thousands of acts of terrorism conducted in the name of Islam. How do those two circles get squared?

Aren't we always told after a terror plot is connected to a Muslim that we can not and will not tolerate a backlash against innocent Muslims? Fair enough but it's a wasted warning since there never has been a backlash in America despite repeated attacks. Shouldn't those always crying about these phantom backlashes be lecturing Muslims around the world not to create a backlash against American soldiers because of the actions of a few idiots in Florida?

A final and somewhat related thought...Chris Matthews was in full lather a few weeks ago that people weren't sufficiently accepting of Obama's profession to be a Christian. It wasn't enough to simply 'take him at his word', apparently one had to go out and affirmatively vouch for what was in Obama's heart. Matthews was very clear that we are to accept what people say about their religious affiliations....

We‘ve got to get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here‘s Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham, and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the—everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever. That‘s the one you‘re a member of. That‘s the one you are. We accept that in America. It‘s called freedom of religion and respect for religion.

Apparently, the new rule is, Oh, I take him at his word, which means, I really don‘t really have any reason believe he‘s telling the truth.

...If somebody says, I‘m Jewish, and says, No, you‘re not, that‘s a character assault. You are who you say you are in this country. And if somebody says you‘re not who you say you are, you‘re calling you a liar!

I'd like to know if Matthews and others on the left think that applies to Muslim terrorists. Aren't we constantly told that bin Laden isn't really a Muslim, that Nidal Hasan wasn't actually practicing Islam but perverting it? Shouldn't I take these and other Muslim terrorists profession of faith as seriously as I take Obama's or anyone elses? Didn't Chris Matthews just tell me that was the rule?

Again, when it comes to Islam the rules are always different.

Added: Just to be clear about something...we are in a war that has many facets. One of them is strategic communications and double standard or not, we have to live within that reality. This post isn't about that or how to strike the right balance between exposing the truth and accepting some convenient fictions for the sake of a larger victory. I do recognize that at some levels that reality exists and has to be accommodated but this is a blog post, not a book or strategy document. My target here is the political left in America, not the greater issues involved.

Added II: Aren't liberals engaging in Islamaphobia when the assume Muslims will react to this with violence? Soft bigotry of low expectations!

Posted by: DrewM at 07:52 AM | Comments (396)
Post contains 1040 words, total size 7 kb.

Brand Democrat™ from Slublog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:08 AM | Comments (312)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.