Screeching video at this link, but here's some text:

“Hi, I’m Michele Bachmann. There are many important issues in this presidential campaign – including the role of government, abuse of executive power and crony capitalism. As a mother of three daughters, I believe that parents are the ones who should decide whether or not their young daughters should receive injections for sexually transmitted diseases. These are decisions that are best left to parents, the children and their doctors and should take into consideration the child’s health and the family’s values.

“Whether its Obamacare or Perrycare I oppose any governor or president who mandates a family’s healthcare choices and violates the rights of parents on these issues – especially if the decision-making process occurs behind closed doors, bypassing legislative action, and favors campaign contributors over families. That’s not right. As President, I’ll do what’s right for families.”

Favoring campaign contributors over families?

We got that.

Meanwhile, Bachman has taken somewhere north of $140,000 from pharmaceutical companies.
Those donors include Abbott Labs, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Bayer. Yet, not a dollar of all that pharma money, from such a wide range of the world's largest drugmakers, came from Merck. Might Bachmann be going after Merck on behalf of that company's competitors who also happen to be Bachmann donors?

But really, if Bachmann is carrying water, it's likely not for her pharmaceutical patrons, but her insurance ones. Over the years, Bachmann has taken in huge donations from the insurance industry, including big names such as Allstate, American Family, Aetna and AFLAC, as well as umbrella organizations like the National Association of Health Underwriters and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. There are also several professional insurance association and agent PACs. In the 2009-10 cycle, "insurance" was the largest single industry donor to the Congresswoman. Of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, Bachmann ranked eighth in total fundraising receipts from insurers.

Now, if Bachmann likes a good follow-the-money insinuation, she might like the hypothetical that she is only going after Perry's Gardasil decision because, as a covered treatment, such an order would cost insurers for every injection (a full vaccination requires three shots, and they cost about $120 each). Perry worked to secure about $40 million from the state to match about that same amount from the feds to cover the uninsured and those on state health assistance.

It should also be noted that while selflessly defending innocent little girls from the needle-rape of sex-predator-doctors wielding jabs of Liquid Whore, she also is now fundraising off of her brave stance.

She's not backing off her previous claim that some woman "cried hysterically" to her and told her that her 10-12 year old daughter (that's the age Gardasil is recommended for) got the shot and became "mentally retarded." She deflects, now, saying she's not a "doctor or scientist," so she cannot evaluate this claim. (She can only fundraise off it, it seems.)

Not to be a dick, but she has previously claimed to be a doctor.

And one more thing: Lest you think she doesn't have the brains to do battle with Obama, she rattles off her degrees. "I'm not only a lawyer, I have a postdoctorate degree in federal tax law from William and Mary," she told Fox News' Chris Wallace in June. "I work in serious scholarship."

But there was one résumé item that was missing: a Ph.D. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when Bachmann traveled the state as an education activist, she went by "Dr. Michele Bachmann," even though she had never obtained nor sought the advanced degree that's a prerequisite for the title.

From 1998 through 2003, Bachmann was a leading opponent of a Minnesota curriculum standard called the Profile of Learning.... Along with a local education activist named Michael Chapman, she toured the state and the nation to drum up opposition to state and federal education standards. And according to eyewitness accounts and material put out by the group, she picked up an advanced degree along the way.

....

" Bachmann's 2002 anti-Profile film, Guinea Pig Kids, likewise twice identified the then-state senator as "Dr. Michele Bachmann."

And in 2000, when Bachmann knocked off incumbent GOP state Sen. Gary Laidig at the district nominating convention, the MREC fired off a news release repeatedly invoking their candidate's honorarium. "On the first ballot, Dr. Michele Bachmann was endorsed 62% to Laidig's 38%," it read. "Dr. Bachmann herself, who arrived at her convention with no intention of running, was shocked by her victory."

So I'm confused. Is she a doctor or not? Currently she's not, I guess.

Why No Mention of RomneyCare? So wonders Matt Lewis.

He's hinting at an idea, which I think is daffy myself, that Bachmann is some kind of stalking horse for Romney.

I don't buy that. I think at the moment, though, they have a tactical, circumstantial alliance based on shared interest. Both want to stop Perry, so they can go back to the old way of dividing up votes between them, moderates and more establishment-oriented people for Romney, social cons and Tea Partiers for Bachmann.

I can't imagine her being a stalking horse for Romney. What would Romney give her? I'll tell you one thing, he's not going to give her any kind of cabinet position.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (443)
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

Obama referred to ponying up even more dollars to prevent teachers from being laid off.

Where would they be laid off? Only in states whose governments, in league with the teachers' unions, continue escalating teachers' salaries beyond the point the public is willing to pay.

That creates a shortfall. A perpetual one. An always-growing one.

Well, Obama's from the government, and he's here to help.

Last Thursday, the president urged Congress to pony up roughly $200 billion in taxpayer money to "provide more jobs for teachers [and] more jobs for construction workers" and more money to carry out other state and local activities. He urges Congress to spend this money even after handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for similar purposes as part of the 2009 stimulus package, as well as a score and more billion dollars again in 2010.

These vast contributions to the coffers of state and local governments, though pitched as a jobs bill, are in reality the latest in a series of bailouts for debt-ridden state and local governments. They are of special benefit to states in the blue regions of the country where the president's most fervent supporters reside.

In many blue states, legislators have copied the politicians in Washington by running up state debts to extraordinary levels. Nationwide, state debt is running around $3 trillion. If unfunded pension liabilities are factored in, estimated liabilities leap forward by another $1 trillion to $3 trillion, depending on the optimism of the assumptions made.

The bond market has taken notice....

In a new study at Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance, we discovered why the Obama administration is so interested in helping out the states. States with a bluish hue—that is, states with legislatures that are heavily Democratic and have a highly unionized public-sector work force—must pay interest rates that are often an extra half a percentage point higher than states with a reddish coloring.

Specifically, a 20 percentage-point increment in either the Democratic share of the state legislature or a comparable increase in the share of the public work force that is unionized drives up interest rates by nearly a half a percentage point on a five-year security note. That amount is nontrivial. In Obama's home state of Illinois, it is costing governments over $700 million annually.

And because this costs these states' more than they can afford (at acceptable rates of taxation), they need a new revenue source, one that doesn't vote in the state... and that source is you, of course.

Only one thing can correct these states' bad prioritization of values: Having to face their own voters, confronting voters with the choice of ever-more-generous pay and benefits for public employee unions or massive tax hikes.

Someone, in these states, is going to get a salary increase, and someone is going to get an effective salary cut (as more dollars are siphoned away to pay for others' salaries).

There's no way to square this circle... except the one way, which is dragoon the citizens of other states into paying for the excesses of the blue states' governments.

Which is precisely what Obama demands.

Because: "jobs."

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

You might think, Big deal. Isn't Dennis Miller already against Obama?

Sure, but on policy. He has always before said "He's a good man, he means well in his heart," or that sort of thing.

Now he's decided he doesn't like him on a personal level, because, as he says, "Obama doesn't like me, and half the country."

The Jimmy Hoffa remarks are what did it for him.

He repeats the same AttackWatch-reportable lies on O'Reilly.

For a while pollsters have been noting that Obama's "favorable impression" numbers run nicely ahead of his job approval numbers. And, the theory goes, once his favorables drop, that would represent the ceiling on his possible top level of support.

I'm overstating things to say that Dennis Miller souring on Obama personally is part of a tipping point, probably. Still, data are made up of anecdotes.

Bonus: Jon Stewart calls Obama a clusterf***.

Actually he calls ObamaCare that, but pretty close. He also slams Congress. The Democratic Congress, I mean.

"I still don't know what he believes in," he says.

Stewart, 48, who's become one of the sharpest political and social observers in any medium since taking over the "Daily Show" in 1999, tells Bates: "Maybe that's my biggest issue with [Obama]: I'm not sure what he truly thinks is the right path, other than that he believes the wealthy should pay a little bit more of their fair share."

Stewart says he's sure the President is "pleased with what he's done," but adds: "I would have preferred to see something a little more transformative."

He also calls Obama's health-care plan a "2,000-page clusterf-k."

Asked to assess another cluster-you-know-what - the debt-ceiling debate - Stewart observes: "You can blame the intransigence of Tea Party Republicans all you want, but Democrats had a chance to pass a budget before they lost the midterm election.

"They didn't do it because they were afraid that those votes would cost them the House," Stewart continues. "They had the ability to avoid the entire f-ing thing. And they didn't do it, out of cowardice."

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 AM | Comments (153)
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

Technically the bad polling news is from yesterday but it's not good. Noted leftwing hack, er, Scott Rasmussen shows Perry trailing Obama.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Obama picking up 46% of the vote, while Perry earns support from 39%. Fifteen percent (15%) are either undecided or prefer another candidate. Two weeks ago, Perry was up by three. Three weeks ago, the president held a three-point edge over the governor. (To see question wording, click here.)

Now, PerryÂ’s chief rival for the nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, holds a three-point lead on the president. Another GOP hopeful, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, trails Obama by double digits. The fluctuation in Perry's, Romney's and BachmannÂ’s numbers comes as a Generic Republican maintains a steady lead over the president.

Perry polling worse than "Generic Republican"? People want to vote for someone other than Obama but it can't be someone who freaks them out. I'm worried Perry might, might, be doing that.

It's September '11 not '12 or even January of '12 so this isn't panic, it's...noteworthy. The big thing is the decline in support coinciding with Mitt's Social Security attacks. Look, I don't like them either but like baseball, there's no crying in politics. What Mitt's doing is no different than what Obama will if he gets the chance.

As Ace talked about yesterday, I'm in the 'deal not closed' camp when it comes to Perry. I want to like him, want to support him full bore but he has to do better. Yes, he gives a good speech but we've seen that movie before. No, he's not Obama but he's got show it. I hear a lot of people tell me how great Perry is and I'm ready to believe it but...I have to see it for myself.

The so-called "debates" aren't a great forum but it's all we have. If he can't put away Romney and Bachmann...then I have concerns. I'd really like to see him in some other settings like a town hall and something like the SC event Jim DeMint hosted. I want to see him pushed not to deliver a comeback but to explain his positions a level or two deep when challenged. I want to know he's got enough wonk in him to get the job done and not just skate by on his lareger than life persona.

Speaking of which.

But to become president of the United States, he’ll have to reach persuadables who don’t value outrageousness for its own sake. If he’s never willing to back down, he’ll have to go — should he win the nomination — all the way to November 2012 defending the notion that Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is possibly guilty of treason. On Social Security, he’s managed to take what turns out to be his thoroughly conventional Republican view that the program should stay the same for seniors and near-retirees while it’s reformed for younger people and make it radioactive through his choice of words and his theoretical musings. His campaign so far has no policy except generalized statements celebrating Texas and condemning the federal government.

Tellingly, his weakest moments in the debates have come when he’s been attacked from the right and can’t fight back with brassy, crowd-pleasing one-liners. He’s made uncomfortable by his streak of pragmatism as Texas governor. For all his self-portrayal as an anti-government purist, he’s adept at marshaling and using power. When he says he’s pro-business, he’s not kidding. Republicans will have to quickly drop the phrase “crony capitalism” from their vocabulary if he’s the nominee.

And finally Perry has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the US-Israeli relationship and dealing with the Palestinians.

Errors by the Obama administration have encouraged the Palestinians to take backward steps away from peace. It was a mistake to call for an Israeli construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, as an unprecedented precondition for talks. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership had been negotiating with Israel for years, notwithstanding settlement activity. When the Obama administration demanded a settlement freeze, it led to a freeze in Palestinian negotiations. It was a mistake to agree to the Palestinians' demand for indirect negotiations conducted through the U.S., and it was an even greater mistake for President Obama to distance himself from Israel and seek engagement with the hostile regimes in Syria and Iran.

Palestinian leaders have perceived this as a weakening of relations between Israel and the U.S, and they are trying to exploit it. In taking this destabilizing action in the U.N., the Palestinians are signaling that they have no interest in a two-state solution. The Palestinian leadership's insistence on the so-called "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel's sovereign territory, thereby making Jews an ethnic minority in their own state, is a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian "solution" remains the destruction of the Jewish state.

The U.S.—and the U.N—should do everything possible to discourage the Palestinian leadership from pursuing its current course.

Standard fare for a GOP candidate not named Ron Paul and certainly an improvement over the current administration.

Some might say this is an example of his policy chops that I'm concerned about. Yes, it shows his general approach to an issue but the real question isn't how he (or frankly, like any candidate, his staff) write a piece, it's how can they articulate it and defend it live, without any notes, when challenged.

Perry might have it in him, God I hope he does because I won't vote for Romney in a primary, but seeing will be believing.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:12 AM | Comments (615)
Post contains 970 words, total size 6 kb.

Before the Iraq war, a lefty friend of mind told me that rethuglikkkan scum, such as yourselves, see the world in a very superficial way. Shallowly, and in stark contrasts. Cartoony. Apparently we lack the cognitive delicacy that lefties exhibit when they examine the state of the world with extreme sensitivity and discernment, then march around in hot pink, throwing urine-filled balloons at police.

But I digress.

Read the whole thing.

This is an absorbing and well-written piece conveying the perspective of a liberal journalist who has known the Bush family off and on for a couple decades.

Technically it's about the way Dubya changed over time. But the best thing about this article is how it puts almost-palpable flesh on the former president.

Fact is, we all create mental caricatures of public figures; we must. After all, we don't know them. Just their faces, and some generalities about them.

In my academic cocoon, Bush was called a stupid warmonger trying to avenge his father’s failure to oust Saddam Hussein, a stupid warmonger trying to make the world safe for Big Oil, a stupid warmonger trying to prop up his sagging popularity. I told colleagues that I believed Bush—right or wrong—sincerely considered Iraq a deadly threat to the United States, period. My view got me labeled a Bush conservative. Then one morning I got into my academic office building’s elevator and saw this scratched into the paint: “Kill Bush.”

I had to catch my breath: Was this America?

Well, Walt seems to be a kindred spirit.

“I have told various George W. haters that they had best not underestimate the man,” I wrote, “that he’s smart, thoughtful in a brawny kind of way and, most of all, a good and decent man. … What I’ve never mentioned is that I didn’t vote for George W. I disagree with him on the Supreme Court, environment, abortion, the death penalty and affirmative action. So I voted against this good and decent man. It pained me to do it. … It baffles me that grown people must convince themselves that those with whom they disagree are stupid or malevolent.”

The best parts, the personal bits, are at the link. Recommend. The article is a little long but goes fast because of all the nifty fresh anecdotes. If you like that sort of thing.

Frankly, contemplating the difference between spin and reality made me start to wonder some things about Obama. Even had the beginnings of a charitable thought. But then I said, "NAAHHHHH...."

Thanks to Vmax.

Posted by: LauraW at 07:41 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

Yesterday Eli Lake of The Daily Beast broke the story of an Air Force General who claims the Obama administration tried to get him to change his prepared congressional testimony in order to lessen the potential damage to a company with extensive ties to the Democratic Party.

Last night the company, LightSquared, spammed a bunch of reporters and bloggers (including me) on Twitter with a statement from the company's CEO that was "correcting the record".

It is, as the kids say, FAIL.

Special interests are trying to distract attention from the facts.

For eight years, LightSquared has navigated the regulatory process to win approvals to build AmericaÂ’s first privately funded coast-to-coast wireless broadband service. LightSquaredÂ’s plan to invest billions of dollars to use its frequencies for an integrated ground-space network has been supported by both Republican and Democratic regulators -- Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, FCC Chairmen appointed by President Bush, and Julius Genachowski, the FCC Chairman appointed by President Obama. In fact, the regulatory approvals that paved our way came in the mid-2000Â’s, during the Bush administration under Powell and Martin.

Ah yes, "special interests" and blame Bush. There's more but it's all along those lines. The statement address the telecom industry and their supposed objections to LightSquared's product. All very interesting but....not actually related to the explosive charge made by General Shelton, head of Space Command that the administration shared his proposed testimony with the company and that he was asked to soft sell his concerns that LightSquared's network would incapacitate the military's GPS which they rely on for just about every aspect of their operations.

I understand why LightSquared wants to protect it's business but Lake's original report was about the actions of the administration, not the company. For all I know, their system is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the military's concerns can be addressed. The problem for them is this statement is non-responsive to the brewing political scandal and only raises more questions.

After getting the Tweet, I replied via Twitter with with a few questions.

.@LightSquared Thanks for statement but it doesn't address charge...OMB provided you w/Gen. Shelton's prepared remarks prior to testimony.

.@LightSquared Was your company provided with the General's remarks by admin? If so, by who and what comments did you provide them on it?

Slu passed along this story from PJ Media which includes this little nugget.

Adding fuel to the explosive story: at one time President Obama was a personal investor, with $50,000 of his own money.

Damn that Bush!

I recommend reading the whole PJ piece for a good rundown on the telecom angle to the story.

If, and it's a HUGE if right now, this story goes somewhere, Solyndra could well be the least of Obama's worries.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:54 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Okay, so "easy" is relative in politics but at least freshman Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI, The Guy Who Beat Russ Feingold) is trying. He had his staff comb through a bunch of cost cutting commission reports and came up with some of their own to create a list of cuts from large to small that totals up to some real money.

I can't vouch for how great an idea each is or the practicality of enacting them all. But it seems like exactly the kind of plan you'd expect from a guy who built his career in the exciting world of "producing plastic sheet for packaging and printing applications", nothing flashy, just practical and useful.

A few of my favorites (pdf).

Cut workforce by 10% by 2015 (through attrition); freeze pay for civilian employees through 2015.

$248,000,000,000 saved.

American taxpayers deserve a leaner, more efficient government, but the federal workforce has ballooned to over 2,137,000, adding 175,000 positions since President Obama took office. Federal workers enjoy 30% to 40% greater total compensation (in wages and benefits) than a comparable private sector worker. The Office of Personnel Management projects that about 400,000 federal employees are currently eligible for retirement.1 (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; the House budget resolution)

...

Require employees to match federal contributions to FERS Defined Benefit Plan.

$133,270,000,000 saved.

Currently, members of the federal workforce pay $1 for every $14 the federal government contributes toward the defined benefit portion of the FERS program. Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan both operate on some version of a direct matching formula. Most federal employees contribute 0.8% of their base pay while the government pays 11.7% — a percentage to increase in October 2011 to 11.9%. Special categories including Members of Congress and their staff receive an even higher percentage of pay toward their basic benefit plan. This cut would institute a dollar-for-dollar match at the 7% level.4 (Suggestion comes from the think tank Third Way)

...

Phase out FERS Basic Benefit Plan.

$75,000,000,000 saved.

The Federal Employees Retirement System Basic Benefit plan is no longer comparable to private sector retirement plans that afford greater flexibility and cost savings through 401(k) and stock option plans. As the Civil Service Retirement System was replaced by a more modern plan in 1983, current FERS can be closed off to new entrants, realizing savings immediately. The Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act of 2011 sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and co-sponsored by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) would close off eligibility to participate in FERS to new federal employees.5 (Suggestion comes from Sen. CoburnÂ’s Back in Black).

There are some other smaller programs and a couple I don't think would or should fly, like conducting the Census online, but I really like these big ticket personnel and benefit reforms. It's the kind of stuff we're seeing across the country at the state level and it's about time the wave hit the federal government. If Chris Christie can do this kind of thing in New Jersey there's no reason, other than the fact that the current President is the pocket of the unions, not to do it at the federal level.

I'm also leery of quick fixes that don't address the real big ticket items like Medicare and Social Security but Johnson makes it clear his proposals are just a start. This is simply a set of proposal that shouldn't need a Super Committee to enact. It also shows you can get to the magic $1.4 trillion without gutting defense.

But hey, since we're so deep in the Doom, we could use these ideas PLUS whatever the Gang of 12 comes up with AND real entitlement reform.

I have to admit I'm a big fan of Ron Johnson and have been from early on. He was a guy who ran a successful business, got involved with the local tea party group and stepped up to run when no one else would. If Rick Perry does get the GOP nomination, he could do worse than Johnson as a running mate. I know Marco Rubio is everyone's first choice (and for good reason) but I think Johnson would bring a lot to the table (business experience, he's not flashy but Perry brings enough of that to the ticket and oh yeah...Wisconsin and the Midwest). Just something to think about for now.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:01 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

FRIDAY, BABY!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:44 AM | Comments (386)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

They say he's the most important man in the news, and I hope so, because I still don't find him funny.*

But he does alert the liberals and independents who watch his show that this is a genuine scandal. In between, I mean, telling them that Green Energy really is the future and this one bad apple shouldn't spoil the bunch and making some claim that only 0.3% (or something) of our government's green energy investments have gone bad.

Um, it's only been two and a half years. Give it time.

But, I guess, this is as good as we can expect from this wannabe Walter Cronkite.

Stewart points something interesting out there: One of the analysts calling shenanigans on this deal predicted the company would tap out of money... in September 2011. Actual date of bankruptcy filing: September 6, 2011.

So, to the spin "no one could have predicted this," um.

More substantive disclosures at Hot Air.

As the company was going down, you'll at least be reassured to know that the OMB -- the president's office of management and budget -- was at least focused on nothing but the prudent care for the taxpayers' money.

Wait, did I say they were worried about nothing but the prudent care of the taxpayers' money? I got that completely wrong. What they were most interested in, when debating whether or not to get another lender to pour money into Solyndra (and put the government in a subordinate position in bankruptcy, as far as recovering whatever was left), they were interested in... the optics of a default.

Not losing your money in a default (and then more due to this new, higher-priority loan). No, the optics.

. Although optics are generally out of our lane, it may be worthwhile for the Director to privately make this point to the Secretary:

Given the PR and policy attention Solyndra received since 2009, the optics of a Solyndra default will be bad whenever it occurs. While the company may avoid default with a restructuring, there is also a good chance it will not. If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today. At that point, additional funds have been put at risk, recoveries may be lower, and question will be asked as to why the Administration made a bad investment, not just once (which could hopefully be explained as part of the challenge of support innovate technologies), but twice (which could easily be portrayed as bad judgement, or worse). In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up, whereas a default today could be put in the context of (and perhaps even get some credit for fiscal discipline / good government because the Administration would be limiting further taxpayer exposure) letting bad projects go, and could make public steps it is taking to learn lessons and improve / limit future lending.

Way to keep your eyes on the bottom line, guys.

And, of course, by "bottom line," I mean optics.

I mean, it's not as if the optics of the photo op with the Vice President had anything to do with the rush-job you did on vetting this disaster in the first place or anything.

Perhaps that's unfair to the OMB guys -- perhaps they really were focused on fiscal prudence, but they knew the only way to catch the Administration's attention was to discuss the optics of a default, and the politics of 2012.

And what does that say, I wonder.

Thanks to rdbrewer.

* Okay, I admit the set-up for each news bit -- "Well at least they didn't X," roll tape of them doing X -- was decent.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

BUMPED [rdbrewer]

Yes, it's that time again. Time to dig down under the cushions, pull out a crud covered nickle or two and drop 'em in the "Keep Ace In Ewok Chow" fund (aka, the PayPal button on the left).

There's no doubting times are tough for everyone but ask yourself how much information, entertainment and diversion from life's more unpleasant realities like work or your spouse, Ace's work has provided for you. Now ask yourself, "how much is all that worth to me?"

Then...double it.

And you guys who are bad at estimating worth? Yeah, you need to triple it just to be safe.

Why come to you with this today? Well guess what...If not for 3 or 4 conservative blogger/media types, Anthony Weiner would still be in Congress. Instead, he's spending more time with his loyal toaster, a Republican is in his old seat and Obama's reelection bid just got Donkey Punched.

No one would deny Ace was one of the key figures keeping the story alive, keeping pressure on more "mainstream" conservative outlets to push the story to the point where it couldn't be ignored.

And here we are.

Conservatives, even the fake ones, know that a business doesn't run on happy thoughts and love. We know they run on the sweat of a team of monkeys chained to a wheel and cash but mostly...cash.

So please toss in whatever you can afford by hitting the PayPall button on the left. A couple of thousand or a few hundred is always welcome but the reality is a bunch of folks contributing $5, $10, $25 or so adds up pretty quickly.

I know all this Gardasil talk has Ace saving up so he can get himself immunized (I didn't have the heart to tell him), so please give what you can.

Know that when we as the co-bloggers do this, we never tell Ace ahead of time and all the money goes to Ace alone. He's too damn bashful to do it for himself. Working and not asking for any remuneration isn't exactly a winning business model but helping to take down an obnoxious liberal Congressman is, if everyone steps up and chips in.

The PayPal button on the left side of the page? Get to know it.

As always...Thank you for reading and commenting. We may fight like cats and dogs but when push comes to shove like any family, we...tolerate each other. That's something, right?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:48 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 440 words, total size 2 kb.