Add this to his "Capitulation of Dramatic Proportions" talk and his opposition to the DREAM Act and you have Lindsey Graham...rock-ribbed, conservative stalwart?

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he "will not vote for the debt ceiling increase" unless it's accompanied by spending and entitlement reform.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Graham said he wants to see spending back at 2008 levels with cuts in discretionary spending.

"Let's see if we can find bipartisan reform on Social Security before we raise the debt ceiling," Graham said.

Lindsey isn't up for reelection until 2014 at which time a certain new Governor of South Carolina will be winding up her first term. I'm guessing someone is getting a little nervous.

BTW- I half joked on Twitter that the GOP should attach their repeal of ObamaCare to the debt ceiling increase. Allah picked up on it at Hot Air so I figured I should mention it here. I'm not sure it would work and it could backfire (the GOP could be seen as playing politics with the US economy) but it would make the debate interesting.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:17 PM | Comments (89)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

The Days of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DREAM Act are over.

Back to work.

House Republicans will vote next week to repeal the new health care law, making good on a top-tier GOP campaign promise and setting up a showdown with President Barack Obama over his signature domestic policy achievement.

Majority Leader-elect Eric Cantor announced the timeline for considering the repeal legislation Monday: the bill will post on the Rules Committee website Monday night, the Rules Committee will meet Thursday, and the rule for the debate will be considered on the House floor Friday. The repeal vote will follow on Wednesday, Jan 12.

"Obamacare is a job killer for businesses small and large, and the top priority for House Republicans is going to be to cut spending and grow the economy and jobs,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring said in a statement. “Further, ObamaCare failed to lower costs as the president promised that it would and does not allow people to keep the care they currently have if they like it. That is why the House will repeal it next week.”

The MFM will dismiss this as symbolic and let's be honest, it is (it's DoA in the Senate and even if it weren't, there's Obama's veto). Still, symbols are important. The public sent a message in November about jobs and the economy (the GOP is smart to tie them to health care) and the Democrats responded with START, DREAM Act and repealing DADT.

With health care/economy back on the agenda it's advantage Republicans.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:22 PM | Comments (119)
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

DrewM., Gabe, and Dave @ Garfield Ridge (and lots of commenters) all point out that this isn't all good, since the restraining force of Tea Party members would be lost.

That occurred to me (and it occurred to Jeff Flake too, who who mentioned being surrounded by Appropriations Party people in Major Garrett's article. (I couldn't quote that part; fair use and all.)

I should have mentioned that, and my guess: While Garrett is noting the "trouble" they're having getting Tea Partiers on Appropriations, it's my assumption he's focusing only on the no's, and that I am guessing at least some Tea Partiers say yes.

So my guess is that this is not a story about absolute resistance by the Tea Partiers; I assume that resistance, like most resistances, can and will be overcome, and there will be Tea Party members on the committee.

That's what I figure, at least.

So for me, the more important part was about the change in attitude, and not in the implication that the Party of Appropriations will have free reign, with no Tea Partiers to restrain them, because it's my hunch that will not happen. Just because Appropriations is diminished as a plum perch doesn't mean, I don't think, that literally everyone will say no to it. I don't think the Tea Party, or anything else, can change the rule that a lot of politicians have ambition.

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Also reportedly "thrilled:" people who make Yo Mama jokes.

rdbrewer posted this in the sidebar on Friday, I think. If you haven't clicked, do so; it's just eight pictures, all of it pretty breathtaking.

This is what we speleologists call "a big fucking cave."

Picture taken from here.

Another good here's-a-human-for-scale-purposes shot:

Hey, let's go fishing:

That from here.

I think a lot of pictures on the internet of caves are now being mislabled as Hang Son Doong/Phong Nha caves, by the way.

Here's a National Geographic article about it. It was discovered 20 years ago, but in May of 2009 an expedition actually explored it. It's in the news now because the last expedition was halted...

In the spring of 2009, Sims was a member of the first expedition to enter Hang Son Doong, or “mountain river cave,” in a remote part of central Vietnam. Hidden in rugged Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park near the border with Laos, the cave is part of a network of 150 or so caves, many still not surveyed, in the Annamite Mountains. During the first expedition, the team explored two and a half miles of Hang Son Doong before a 200-foot wall of muddy calcite stopped them. They named it the Great Wall of Vietnam. Above it they could make out an open space and traces of light, but they had no idea what lay on the other side. A year later, they have returned—seven hard-core British cavers, a few scientists, and a crew of porters—to climb the wall, if they can, measure the passage, and push on, if possible, all the way to the end of the cave.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

This is good news if true.

Results?

About two weeks ago, Speaker-to-be John Boehner found himself in an odd conversation with a young Republican House member. Their talk may rank as the most compelling example yet that the huge midterm GOP victory will produce real change in Washington—not just change in the familiar political sense, but down-the-rabbit-hole change, in which the world as we understand it seems to disappear.

Boehner was trying to “lure” Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah onto the Appropriations Committee. Yes, lure. The 43-year-old, first-term lawmaker was hesitating over appointment to the vaunted panel, long regarded as one of the best perches in all of Washington. For most House members, Appropriations is the summa of committee assignments. A seat on the panel brings power, prestige, and lobbyists’ cash. It’s earmark heaven, too.

Chaffetz said no.
...

Michael Franc, a congressional scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told National Journal that at two separate orientation conferences—one at Harvard University and the other at Heritage—informal surveys of 49 of the 85 incoming GOP freshmen revealed not one who identified Appropriations as his or her No. 1 committee choice. “They all saw it as a foreign entity,” Franc said.

Jordan says that the leadership is having trouble finding freshmen willing to serve on Appropriations, an unheard-of circumstance that suggests, at least for the time being, that spending and the perks that historically have come with it are radioactive.

“It’s a testament to what I hope and believe is a culture shift,” said Jordan, who admitted that he steered clear of Appropriations in part to solidify his bid to lead the conservative Republican Study Committee—a hotbed of GOP antagonism toward appropriators.

And Jordan wasn't the only named "no." The earmark and fundraising machine that is the Appropriations Committee is being rejected in favor of the new hot ticket, the subpoaeing and investigating Darell Issa's Government Reform and Oversight Committee. I think that says a lot -- earmarking out, reform in.

Major Garrett's full report at the National Journal.

Can they actually resist the corrupting disease of DC? So far, so good, but working in a swamp has a way of getting to even those with high resistance.

Posted by: Ace at 11:37 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

Really good essay by VDH. It doesn't really say anything you didn't know, but sums up the socialist disease of both Greece and California well.

Despite socialists having a free hand in both places to work their utopian confiscate-and-reallocate magic, both places are in financial ruin, and still the socialists blame "Them" for this state of affairs. "Them" varies by place, but the exact identity of "Them" hardly matters -- the only important thing is that "Them" not be "Us."

Speaking of neverending disasters, Paul Krugman's written a new column. No, but seriously, I wouldn't take his advice on fixing our disease (he continues to advocate more and more Keynesian "stimulus") but his prognosis is probably right -- we're in dire, death-spiral sort of shape.

First of all, we have to grow around 2.5 percent a year just to keep up with rising productivity and population, and hence keep unemployment from rising. ThatÂ’s why the past year and a half was technically a recovery but felt like a recession: G.D.P. was growing, but not fast enough to bring unemployment down.

Growth at a rate above 2.5 percent will bring unemployment down over time. But the gains arenÂ’t one for one: for a variety of reasons, it has historically taken about two extra points of growth over the course of a year to shave one point off the unemployment rate.

Now do the math. Suppose that the U.S. economy were to grow at 4 percent a year, starting now and continuing for the next several years. Most people would regard this as excellent performance, even as an economic boom; itÂ’s certainly higher than almost all the forecasts IÂ’ve seen.

Yet the math says that even with that kind of growth the unemployment rate would be close to 9 percent at the end of this year, and still above 8 percent at the end of 2012. We wouldnÂ’t get to anything resembling full employment until late in Sarah PalinÂ’s first presidential term.

Seriously, what we’re looking at over the next few years, even with pretty good growth, are unemployment rates that not long ago would have been considered catastrophic — because they are. Behind those dry statistics lies a vast landscape of suffering and broken dreams. And the arithmetic says that the suffering will continue as far as the eye can see.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, as excited as one can be about reforming the filibuster. ItÂ’s not the most exciting subject in the world. For proof of this, one need only look at who the NY Times trotted out to sell the latest version of reformÂ….Walter Mondaallllle (sorry, I fell asleep on my keyboard just thinking of Mondale).

But itÂ’s now clear that our reform was insufficient for todayÂ’s more partisan, increasingly gridlocked Senate. In 2011, senators should pull back the curtain on Senate obstruction and once again amend the filibuster rules.

Reducing the number of votes to end a filibuster, perhaps to 55, is one option. Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would also help. So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency — like eliminating the secret “holds” that allow senators to block debate anonymously.

Our country faces major challenges — budget deficits, high unemployment and two wars, to name just a few — and needs a functioning legislative branch to address these pressing issues. Certainly some significant legislation passed in the last two years, but too much else fell by the wayside. The Senate never even considered some appropriations and authorization bills, and failed to settle on a federal budget for all of next year. Votes on this sort of legislation used to be routine, but with the new frequency of the filibuster, a supermajority is needed to pass almost anything. As a result the Senate is arguably more dysfunctional than at any time in recent history.

Several other liberals are proposing their own versions and rationales for reforming the filibuster.

As a conservative my response isÂ…fine, do it.

Democrats are fighting the last war here. They are still sad that with even 59 or 60 votes they couldnÂ’t get everything they wanted (DREAM Act, Card Check, Cap and Trade, the government option in health care, etc) so now they think they should change the rules.

HereÂ’s why thatÂ’s stupid and in fact (at least in the short run) helps RepublicansÂ…Democrats can pass any of their base pleasing pet projects and they will only die in the Republican controlled House.

Personally, IÂ’d love to see Democrats go on record for some of those things. More enjoyable would be watching Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, Debbie Stabenow, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey and Jim Webb vote against a good bit of it. At long last the cherished dream of idiots nationwide for bi-partisanship would be achieved.

The other option would be these swing state “moderate” Democrats voting in lockstep with the liberal base…let the GOP TV ads begin!

Additional fun would be provided by the usual wobbly “Republicans” voting yes on some of this. It would be…clarifying and fodder for primaries.

But wait, thereÂ’s more! If the Democrats make it easier to achieve cloture, thatÂ’s going to make life simpler for Republicans (assuming they take control of the Senate in 2 years).

Other than some nominations that might get through, it seems most of the benefits of filibuster reform, again at least in the short term, accrue to the Republicans.

So go for Democrats, reform the filibuster. WeÂ’ll be sure to send you a thank you note for it.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:53 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

Charlie Cristed got demolished by an "extremist" Tea Partier in Florida. Ergo, he's obviously what the Obama Administration needs.

LetÂ’s analyze this potentially savvy move by the President.

Charlie Crist, once a very popular sitting Governor, finishes the year with a remarkable 50% approval rating-even after losing to Rubio by 19 points. Crist finished with 30% of the vote, while Democrat Kendrick Meek finished 3rd with 20%. This numbers are very telling when you consider that if Crist ran as a Democrat, and not just a Democrat-lite candidate, he would have garnered, at least 10-15% more of the vote and made it a fairly close election. Whether heÂ’s a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, Governor Crist is still very popular amongst Floridians and he would be able to deliver a potential Obama-Crist ticket a considerable amount of Independent votes and perhaps some of his GOP loyalistsÂ’ votes.

Another point to consider is that Obama has fallen out of favor with many conservative-leaning Democrats, so with Crist on the ticket, it would be a brilliant head fake by President Obama as coming across as being somewhat bipartisian in picking the ‘Independent’ Crist.

Another point to consider is that first one again, that he was bested by an "extremist" by 19 points, and even had he run as a Democrat, it most likely only would have been "close."

Then again, it would make for good bumper stickers: Charlie Crist for VP; Tanned, Ready, & Bested.

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

He was motivated, I guess, on continuing his unbroken-starts record. Now that that record is arrested (he didn't start a game earlier this season, and didn't start the last game, either) I guess he's finally finished.

The 41-year-old quarterback sat out Minnesota's season-ending loss to the Lions on Sunday with a concussion, and it appears that perhaps the toughest man to ever play in the NFL had his career end not on the field trying to rally the Vikings to another victory, but on the bench as a third-string rookie floundered in Favre's place.

No one -- not even Brett Favre -- can play forever.

"I know it's time, and that's OK. It is," Favre said after the 20-13 defeat. "Again, I hold no regrets, and I can't think of too many players offhand that can walk away and say that. Individually and from a team standpoint, it was way more than I ever dreamed of."

Favre seems to have a lot of h8rs. I like that he played into his forties.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (139)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Most are agin' him.

Voting occurs is several rounds of balloting, if no one manages a majority, which is very very likely. So it then becomes important to ask if any of the people opposing Steele would support him as a second choice. But it turns out that none of the 88 opposing him say he's their second choice.

That still leaves the possibility of his being a third choice (and balloting could come down to third choices), but it seems that the 88 are pretty sure they'd favor anyone but Steele.

Fifty-five members, some of whom have endorsed one of SteeleÂ’s challengers, have signaled that they will not support the chairman under any circumstances. An additional 33 pledged their support elsewhere.

Just as telling, not a single member of the committee said that Steele was their second choice in the race – a grave indicator in a contest likely to be decided in multiple ballots.

Steele could still win since the politicking is hot and heavy, with lots of negative attacks directed at his challengers (not all from Steele, since they're attempting to beat each other, too). Reince Priebus' law firm (not he himself) takes the position that ObamaCare is constitutional -- which I don't think is very surprising, since, well, lawyers. We know how they lean, generally. More is being outed about Priebus -- none of it, I think, really all that disqualifying -- but some may be put off by the fact that as a clerk in law school he worked for the NAACP's defense fund, and or worked, supposedly, as a lawyer (at the direction of his client) on the "wrong side' of an eminent domain lawsuit.

This seems very weak to me. A "principled conservative" is not, as Dan Riehl implies, against eminent domain generally. Eminent domain is permitted by the Constitution, by seriously strong implication. (Fifth Amendment: no property shall be taken by the state for public purposes wiithout fair compensation, which unavoidably suggests it can be taken for public purposes with fair compensation. Kelo wasn't about eminent domain generally, which is unassailable as a constitutional principle; it was about seizing private property for private, not public, benefit. The suit Priebus was an attorney on seems to involve the taking of property to create a street ("a new street design") which seems to be the classic use of eminent domain. Streets and railway lines? That's the whole point of the power.

Maria Cino, meanwhile, is being attacked for being pro-abortion, supposedly, because she served on the board of directors of the WISH List, a group (as I understand it) which attempts to elect pro-choice Republicans women.

She says she was only serving there to help Republican women achieve office, whether pro-choice or not; that is, she says she didn't care about the "pro-choice" part but was just trying to elect Republican women of any stripe. She says she later tried to correct the whole pro-choice thing:

“In 1997, they asked me to help them,” Cino said. “I told them that I was, in fact, as they knew, pro-life. They understood that. And they asked me to help them with women candidates. I did that for one year.”

“My involvement with WISH List was for one reason pure and simple, to use WISH List as a vehicle against Emily’s List (a pro-abortion Democratic outfit) to elect Republican women,” she said. “After a year, it became clear to me that, unlike the 80s and 90s, we had alot of pro-life women that were now running and we needed to get more women to run.”

She said she began to limit her involvement with WISH List and founded VIEW PAC, a group that made it possible to give to pro-life women as well.

“I wanted a vehicle to help more of the pro-life females who were beginning to run,” she said.

Dannenfelser asked a follow up question about how, with her deep pro-life conviction, how could she set aside those views to work directly with a group that advocates for abortion and elected only pro-abortion candidates.

“I didn’t look at it as a pro-choice or a pro-life organization,” Cino said. “I have been committed for the last 20-some odd years to electing Republican women. Rightfully or wrongfully, I looked at it purely from a standpoint of electing Republican women.”

She also says that she's pro-life, but I don't know if that's going to help her. A close connection with a pro-choice group seems close to disqualifying in a party that's overall 75% strongly pro-life.

Gentry Collins, the former political director at the RNC who quit and released that scathing report about Steele's spending and such, also dropped out, apparently just due to failure to get any traction in the race, which leaves the big candidates as Priebus, Cino, and Saul Anzunis, who I think got the furthest in balloting against Steele last time 'round.

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 849 words, total size 6 kb.