I think Mediaite is on to something when they write:

ThereÂ’s no freakout like a Ron Paul fan freakout.

I need William Shatner to take the podium and say "Get a life."

A meme has emerged on the PaulWeb that, during a commercial break in last night’s Republican Presidential Debate, Gov. Rick Perry “assaulted” fellow Texan Ron Paul, “suddenly grab(bing)” Paul’s forearm while “aggressively pointing his index finger towards the Congressman’s face.”

The only “source” for these allegations is an AP photo with a much blander caption, but that’s just what you’d expect from the anti-Paul media, right?

Here's the assault in progress:

P-shop by Slublog

Another picture shows Perry "menacing" the Drow doctor from Texas.

The only thing here is that Ron Paul, I think, is maybe just slightly an angry old crank, and may decide to run 3rd party, and will especially be keen on such a thing if he's angry at Perry for touching him, which of course is coercive, and therefore an outrage in whatever silly version of libertarianism he believes in.

Was Rick Perry Trying To Prevent Paul from Fleeing To Mexico? Because that's what a border fence does, you know-- it prevents Americans from fleeing the tyranny of the USA to the democratic nirvana of Mexico.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (536)
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

A drafting error in ObamaCare may permit states to mostly gut the law.

Government-created exchanges are places for individuals to shop and purchase health insurance. ObamaCare will require individuals and families to buy insurance, starting in 2014.

Those with incomes at 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for taxpayer funded subsidies — a tax credit to help pay for the premium.

It turns out that the legislation isn't so clear, the latest example of what analysts predicted would be a stream of surprises from the mammoth health law.

Section 1311 of ObamaCare instructs state governments to set up an exchange. If a state refuses, Section 1321 lets the federal government establish an exchange in the state.

Yet ObamaCare states that the tax credit is available to people who are enrolled in an "an exchange established by the state under (Section) 1311." It makes no mention of people enrolled in federal exchanges being eligible for the tax credit.

"There is this technical problem in the law," said James Blumstein, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School. "I don't see how you get around that."

This could be a big problem, as some states probably won't set up and run exchanges.

And if the states don't set them up, the fed is entitled to (by the law according to ObamaCare), but the dictate that the states offer 100-400% premium subsidy support would not apply.

The IRS is attempting to modify the law by rule (that is, by bureaucratic fiat).

Thanks to Y-Not.

In the original post, I floated a tip. Gabe will be discussing this in detail later, but his first impression of the claim is that it's wrong. That being the case, I am relegating the tip to the Extended Entry below, a little more caveated now.

It's not a retraction, because I don't know. I do think there will be official word about this soon.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 738 words, total size 5 kb.

The Teleprompter Presidency is teleprompting its allies. Including lowly bloggers.

The teleprompter script for tonightÂ’s speech by President Barack Obama is still a secret, but the White HouseÂ’s script for spinning reporters, bloggers, and their audiences has been leaked to The Daily Caller.

..

The talking points repeat ObamaÂ’s favored campaign-trail themes, depicting the economy as a victim of President George W. Bush; the Republicans as unpatriotic and greedy partisans; and Obama as an optimistic, fair-minded, reformist, bipartisan, fiscal moderate.

The proposal will be called "The American Jobs Act." (Clever!) Here is part of the talking points; I don't want to swipe it all from the Daily Caller.

The American Jobs Act is:

based on bi-partisan ideas;

it is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share; and

it will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW — just as soon as Congress acts.

Every day, people in this country are working hard to meet their responsibilities. The question now is whether Washington will meet theirs.

The time for obstruction and gridlock is over. Congress needs to put country ahead of politics.

The American people know that the economic crisis and the deep recession werenÂ’t created overnight and wonÂ’t be solved overnight. The economic security of the American middle class has been under attack for decades.

They had to prime liberals with these talking points? Not exactly re-inventing the wheel here, Champ. Pretty much the same weaksauce you say in every single one of your myriad tv appearances.

Meanwhile, Darrell Issa is noting some facts to go along with the administration spin.

REPORT: Will President Obama’s “Son of Stimulus” Produce Same Results as Its Predecessor? 1.usa.gov/o2S8vM

FACT: true unemployment in Obama Economy tops 16%: unemployed+stopped looking REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2 #jobs

FACT: 1.1 million Americans given up looking for #jobs in @barackobama economy. REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2 #jobs

FACT: 8.1 million Americans stuck in part time jobs b/c fulltime not available. REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2 @whitehouse

FACT: less than 55% of Americans have full time jobs-lowest % in modern history REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2 @whitehouse

FACT: @WhiteHouse said #stimulus keeps unemployment below 8%...it hit 10.1% after REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2

FACT: #stimulus cost at least $825 billion. 2.3 million jobs lost since. REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2 @whitehouse

FACT: since #stimulus, America has lost 2.3 million jobs. @GOPOversight REPORT: 1.usa.gov/pWW2Lp #tcot #p2

RT @travelingseas: Spokesperson just on Fox talking abt jobs 2 be created/saved. Ones she mentioned, 5 of 6 pub sector. 6th, construction.

FACT: since #stimulus, America has been decimated by a Stuttering Cluster***k of a Miserable Failure #SCOAMF #PresidentLadiesTee

Okay he didn't say the last one but he should have.

He's not calling this the "The American Jobs Act;" he's calling it "son of stimulus."

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (167)
Post contains 504 words, total size 4 kb.

As far as expectations: This is what we expected.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) does not have a legal right to sue over the law's requirement that most people buy insurance. The court vacated a lower court's ruling in the case and instructed the lower court to dismiss the suit.

The Supreme Court is almost certain to have the final say on whether the coverage mandate is constitutional. Most legal observers expect the court to hear arguments during the term that begins in October, and rule in the summer of 2012.

The 4th CircuitÂ’s long-awaited decision isnÂ’t a huge surprise: those who attended oral arguments in the suits said the judges seemed skeptical of the mandateÂ’s critics, especially Cuccinelli. All three of the judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents, and two were appointed by Obama.

So the situation isn't changed: It's still going to the Supreme Court, and we have one circuit court which has ruled that a key element of the legislation is utterly unconstitutional.

What bothers me, though, is that no circuit court ruled that the legislation as a whole is unconstitutional -- the 11th circuit tossed out the mandate, but then ruled the rest of the legislation could survive without it. Despite the fact that they was argued by Obama to be a key part of the law, a crucial bit of financing.

Unless the Supreme Court gets more cojones than that, and merely follows the 11th Circuit's ruling, we're going to have all of the bad parts of ObamaCare on the books but, even worse, even less money to pay for it, which would mean that Congress would have to increase taxes for that purpose.

I previously thought the entire law could be scrapped if we just elected a Republican majority into Congress, but Michele Bachmann keeps saying we will need 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster of repeal. I thought we could just use reconciliation rules for this (the same way the thing was passed in the first place), but Bachmann doesn't seem to think that's possible, and as no one questions her on this, I think she must be right.

Does anyone know the answer here? I guess reconciliation can only be used... what, as a bill is specifically being passed and not merely later changed? Why can't the House pass some kind of modification to ObamaCare, and then have 51 Senators invoke the reconciliation rules (no filibuster for changes that reduce the deficit) to pass a general repeal?

That's what I thought we could do, but a sitting Congresswoman who seems pretty well versed on this issue says no.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

Huh.

As RD says, seems like someone must have gotten a search warrant without running it by Eric Holder.

Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar- panel maker that was backed by the Obama administration, is being raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation today, an agency spokeswoman said.

“We’re executing a search warrant jointly” with the Department of Energy inspector general “regarding an investigation,” FBI spokeswoman Julie Sohn said of the raid at the company’s Fremont, California, headquarters offices and plant.

Posted by: Ace at 08:07 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

This outstanding dating-site profile makes a similar guarantee very clear: "I will not murder you."

As NRO's Maggie Gallagher and our own JeffB. wrote, all of Perry's passion and emphasis was on not backing down from his Ponzi scheme statement. He offered a brief, throwaway statement that seniors over 55 (I think he said) would be taken care of with no changes. But he did not hit that line with any kind of passion or reassurance, the way you really need to when you're talking about making changes to a program that a lot of people rely on.

Gallagher writes further:

Twenty-five-year-olds do not vote on Social Security. Do you remember being 25? Old people vote on Social Security. A conservatism worthy of the name must demonstrate it cares about the governmentÂ’s promise to these old people, who have no way to recuperate if the government fails to deliver.

David Freddoso similarly recommends a more conventional approach:

But as much as I like to hear a dose of the sharp truth, "Ponzi Scheme" is not the best way to discuss Social Security. Perry would do far better to do what other GOP pioneers in this area have done, and stick to the basics. First, emphasize that he won't mess with anyone over 55. Second, lay out ideas about what he wants to put in place for people my age. (The Chilean model, which Herman Cain invoked, is one of the best ideas for this, although there are others.) Perry should also avoid the trap George W. Bush fell into on Social Security. Don't talk about the system's solvency, but about all the wealth that it is locking up, never to be invested in American businesses. Talk about how those paying in could well end up passing a mere fraction of their lifelong contributions to their children. A modern, defined-contribution pension system could turn today's uneducated day-laborers into the parents of tomorrow's college-educated professionals.

It should be noted that Marco Rubio talks up reforms to entitlements, in retiree-heavy Florida, and yet won an election, easily. But Rubio had a much more reassuring pitch, closer to what Gallagher and Freddoso advise for Perry.

There may be a reason Perry has no passion in offering reassurances on this: It's possible he is a complete true-believer in the 10th Amendment (stronger form), and doesn't just dabble in it when convenient. From his language in FED Up! (at least the language I've seen endlessly excerpted), he does seem to think the program went wrong from the start.

So it's possible he can't offer some kind of stronger reassurance, because he just thinks the program is unconstitutional, and further -- and this is the important part -- is determined to act upon that belief.

I hope that's not really the case. And I know at this point we now will have another discussion of pragmatism versus purity. But let's just skip that and incorporate by reference all the previous arguments about it.

The Other View: A smattering of folks think Perry exceeded expectations and won the debate. Rich Lowry seems to be in that camp, praising Perry's bluntness.

Posted by: Ace at 07:52 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

What in the world are the GOP candidates thinking letting MSNBC and The Democratic Daily Newsletter (aka Politico) host these things? This was nothing more than an effort to get as many soundbites of Republicans knocking each other as possible.

You know who won the night? Our very own Ben who noted during the live blog a mysterious absence of certain topics.

notice the debate moderators are staying away from every issue Obama is failing at, the economy, jobs, and spending

It was nothing more than an exercise in ignoring Obama and minimizing any benefit a candidate might be gaining. If Perry or Romney started to score too many points it seemed like inevitably the next question went to Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman who could be counted on to be buffoonish and attack traditional conservative stances.

As Ben Domenech summed it up nicely it in his excellent daily email blast "The Transom" (which you can subscribe to here).

I wonder if Brian Williams and John F. Harris honestly believe the debate was between them, ordained as neutral arbiters, and the Republican field – not between the candidates on the stage. Williams’ repeated needling of Ron Paul was a particularly absurd rabbit hole, but it was Harris who wasted the most time, chasing after Perry on scooplet after irrelevant scooplet, hoping desperately for some kind of gaffe. There were more questions asked about an old never-implemented HPV policy than about job creation – zero questions, by my count, were actually asked on that score.

Here’s the point: debates within Republican primaries ought to be about informing Republican voters what candidates believe, and why. Instead, we get all the insight of the New York Yankees sitting for a press conference with a bunch of die-hard Red Sox fans. (“The next question is for Mr. Jeter from Twitter user @MickeyfromNatick…”) A Republican voter would come away from that debate with no clear perspective on what the frontrunners plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense spending or the Eurozone collapse. On the central fiscal issue dividing conservative and moderate Republicans – the conflict between the push for austerity and pro-growth tax cuts – there were no questions asked at all. There was nothing of note asked regarding President Obama’s speech today, perhaps an indication that not even Harris or Williams can pretend it matters.

And bringing in the guy from Telemundo to ask the immigration questions? Boy that was subtle, hey let's try see if they have the guts to be racist to the Hispanic guy's face!

It was also appalling racism on the part of two liberal news organizations.

If the guy from Telemundo is enough of a journalist to be included at all, why not include him on the panel and let him ask anything he wants? Are NBC and Politico saying Hispanic journalists need to stay in the immigration ghetto and let the big (white) boys handle the hard stuff? Seems like it. Just imagine if Fox News had pulled that kind of stunt. The howls of outrage coming from Media Matters for America and every other liberal nitwit would be non-stop (and well earned). But MSNBC? Silence.

And don't even get me started on the post debate panel featuring every liberal they could find including noted race baiter Al Sharpton. Spin we much!

I had issues with the South Carolina forum held on Monday but if you really want to get at information useful to Republican voters and get a sense of a candidates ability to think and engage on issues, then you need to go more in that direction. Candidates come out one at a time and have to talk and think. I kind of liked letting Jim DeMint and Robert George ask the questions. Steve King was useless but no more so than Brian Williams.

Take the basic format and tweak it a bit. Build a panel which includes a sitting or recently retired Republican politician (someone in Congress or a Governor), a conservative academic and a conservative opinion journalist that question and engage the candidates one at a time. It would be a far more informative way to spend our time than the soundbite factory stuff we saw last night. I'm far more interested in the ideas these people have, their experience and their plans to get their agenda enacted than I am their ability to produce or not produce talking points and per-planned attack lines on cue. If you want to see that stuff, go to the aquarium and watch the dolphin show, at least they get a fish when they perform correctly.

Just because Williams and the dude from Politico have "Journalist" on their business cards doesn't mean they are any better at getting information than anyone else. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. The sooner the GOP gets this, the better off we'll all be.

As for how they fared in the dog and pony show...

Rick Perry was...uneven. Yes, let's be charitable. His AGW answer was simply awful. The name a scientist bit was cheap but Perry should have been able to lay out his reasons for questioning AGW. He came off as a talking point machine who didn't know why he opposed it for anything other than political reasons. I'm not saying that's who he is but it's how he came off. His staff needs to get him some talking points on CERN and Roy Spencer at Alabama-Huntsville.

He also needs to make it crystal clear that he's not talking about messing with Social Security for anyone on or near it. He's in big trouble if he can't make that argument.

Overall, I give him a pass since it's his initial dip in the pool but he needs to do better. Part of the problem of getting in late is you don't have time to do previews in small town Iowa, you're going right to Broadway. And when your the national leader by double digits out of the gate, you need to make sure you meet expectations. Perry simply didn't last night. It's not fatal by any stretch but it's...something to keep an eye on.

Mitt was Mitt. He's much better than he was 4 years ago and can give and take a shot now. He's also made it clear with his Social Security attacks on Perry that he's taking a page out of the Democrats playbook. It's worked for them in the past, it could work for him now.

All along I thought Mitt wanted a big field to fracture the conservative vote so he could piece together a coalition of everyone else and win by a plurality, along the lines of McCain in '08. While I still think that's his goal (Run Sarah Run! is his deepest wish), it's clear he's willing to take Perry head on. He's not going to try and out conservative him since that's folly but rather he'll try and make Perry look too extreme and raise electability questions. Think of Kerry/Dean in '04, Democrats fell in love with Dean but in the end Kerry won because he made Democrats think it was too risky to run Dean. I'm sure Mitt will love being compared to Kerry but I think after last night, that's going to be the dynamic.

As for the rest, meh.

Newt was awesome. After Monday in SC and last night he's my very, very distant second choice. Yes, I know all the reasons that's insane and stupid and crazy and I don't care. Everyone is flawed and if Perry implodes, screw it, I'll take brilliant crazy Newt in a suicide run for the nomination over Mitt. Don't bother telling me all the reasons that's wrong. I know them, I just won't care at that point.

All the others....remember that week Michele Bachmann was the hot ticket? That was weird, right? She did have a good line about why the media's favorite 10:1 spending to tax hikes thing is a sucker bet for the GOP. It was the only useful invocation of Reagan all night.

In short, bad format, not a stellar night or an awful one for Perry and if Perry turns out to be the second coming of teh Fred, I'm going to need a strait jacket.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:46 AM | Comments (291)
Post contains 1387 words, total size 8 kb.

Just how bad a scam is Social Security, anyway? Answer: pretty damned bad.

What can you expect from BammerÂ’s jobs speech? If history is any guide...a big gaseous ball of cliche, pandering, perfidy, responsibility-dodging, magical thinking, tu quoque, historical amnesia, confusion, and unfounded assertions. In other words: the same old, same old.

President Obama: A trifecta of ineptitude.

The “green” FAIL train just keeps on rolling.

As a Department of Energy (DOE) spokesperson said, “the project that we supported succeeded. The facility was producing the product it said it would produce, and consumers were buying the product.”

Mark Steyn: Why Johnny canÂ’t figure out which end of the hammer to hold.

IBD: Obama’s “recovery” a flop of historical proportions. Bammer might be moving out of Jimmy Carter country and into Herbert Hoover-ville if things don't pick up soon.

A depressing nonfarm productivity chart. WeÂ’re at 5th place productivity-wise among nations (which isn't as bad as it sounds, but then again we were as high as 2nd only a few years back).

A middle-class upbringing does not guarantee a middle-class life. It was easier to be “middle class” in a former age when there was little world competition. It is now more difficult, and not just in economic terms. A “middle class” requires, to a large extent, a shared culture and shared values among the citizenry, and that shared mental space is now smaller and more fractured than it has ever been. The “American Dream” means very different things to different people now -- sometimes diametrically opposed things. Still, as WRM points out, there are still some simple rules for being successful: get married, stay married, don’t do drugs, and get educated (though not necessarily at a college).

Greece: The good news? WeÂ’re not putting any more bad news on your plate for now. The bad news? YouÂ’ve already got a giant mound of bad news on your plate already, and it ainÂ’t getting any smaller.

Bammer's cadre don't just suck at Keynesianism; they suck at understanding what Keynesianism is (and is not).

BernankeÂ’s Waterloo? If Bernanke is Napoleon...who plays the Duke of Wellington?

More on the demographic and economic issues surrounding the aging of the Baby Boomers. Er, you might not want to count on that inheritance if youÂ’re the child of a Boomer. Just sayinÂ’.

Apparently, we had to save the big banks in order to sue them.

The Fed's "beige book" report paints a gloomy picture. It just confirms what we already know: the economy is going to suck clear into 2013. There isn't much good to be expected.

Bernanke: "Hey, you know what would be cool now that our short-term debt is paying zero interest? What if we could drive down our ten-year interest to zero? That would be awesome! Well...not for savers so much because they'd kind of take it in the shorts, and it'd be hard on the old folks who live on fixed incomes, but screw those geezers. I'm not into rewarding prudence and responsibility. Throw on some Chubby Checker and break out your dancing shoes! Let's twist again!"

UPDATE 1: James Lileks (one of the best humorists this nation has ever produced) has some rather bitter words to share about His Majesty the King. (Via Michael Greenspan, by way of Insty.)

UPDATE 2: Tyler Cowen on Bastiat's famous "broken windows" fallacy and Keynesians, who ever seek to find loopholes in that fallacy.

Keynesians tend to overestimate the importance of flows and underestimate the importance of stocks and sometimes they neglect the latter altogether. Just as there is a spending multiplier, there is also a multiplier from changes in wealth. For instance declines in perceived wealth will cause people to spend less. The Keynesian AD gains from a broken window have to stem from the difference between the spending multiplier and the wealth multiplier.

UPDATE 3: From the sidebar -- jobless claims rise to 414,000 last week. Everybody together now: UNEXPECTEDLY!
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:45 AM | Comments (257)
Post contains 724 words, total size 7 kb.

A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:07 AM | Comments (210)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberals Believe the Darnedest Things

Here Jeff Bergner of the Weekly Standard catalogs the collection of beliefs that make up the mythology of the Left. None of these are probably a surprise to readers of conservative blogs but it is interesting to see them all laid out in one place.

If you've ever wondered how liberals can see the same inputs as other people, yet come to utterly different conclusion - the answer is that they have a different set of assumptions about how the world works. And naturally their biggest misunderstandings have to do with conservatives.

Myth #3: The Republican party is moving to the right. When things go wrong for liberals, as they did in last NovemberÂ’s elections, and politics seems especially divisive, it is never because liberals have moved out of the mainstream. ThereÂ’s only one possible explanation: Republicans must be moving to the right. But in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, Republicans stood for lower taxes, less federal spending, smaller deficits, less government regulation, a strong defense, free trade, limits on abortion, and First and Second Amendment rights. Sound familiar?

Myth #6: Women are naturally liberals. Having suffered inequality, women too must be liberals, and conservative women must be traitors to their group. ItÂ’s quite all right to call them the ugliest names. LetÂ’s be frank: In 2010 Republicans ran some pretty rough and ready, nontraditional candidates, both men and women. Who was singled out for special derision and condescension? Sharron Angle, Christine OÂ’Donnell, Michele Bachmann, and of course Sarah Palin, who was not even running for anything.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:33 PM | Comments (429)
Post contains 1021 words, total size 9 kb.