Running in Blue parts of the country tends to do that to you.

That was 1990, by the way. So his conversion occurred four years before Mittens'.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (767)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't think this tells us more than the following, though:

Romney's gaffes and weaknesses have begun to bubble in the public consciousness, whereas Santorum's -- until recently a footnote candidate, even when he won in Iowa -- haven't yet.

For example:

DICK MORRIS: Obama did not make a mistake in this [forced contraception/abortifacient coverate] mandate. ItÂ’s a deliberately calculated move on his part. The Democrats realize that abortion is no longer a winner for them. It used to be ten points more pro-choice than pro-Life, now itÂ’s ten points more pro-Life than pro-choice possibly because of the publicity of the anti-abortion people, possibly because of the aging of the population. But the point is that itÂ’s a loser issue. So what theyÂ’re trying to do now is replace it with contraception.

So the first piece of evidence was after Santorum won Iowa, the first controversy was, “Do you think states should have the right to ban contraception?” Where did that come from? Then you remember that ABC debate with that paid Democratic hitman George Stephanopoulos went after Romney trying to…

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Friend of yours, Dick.

MORRIS: …trying to pin him down on, on contraception? And Romney kept saying, “George, nobody wants to make contraception.” “No, but do they have the theoretical power to do it?” Remember, it was five minutes, people were laughing at him, booing him. Well that…

HANNITY: You think he was doing this under direct orders?

MORRIS: Under orders. And I think, and now he comes out with this thing on contraception. They want to create the idea, and itÂ’s no coincidence, that he came out with it after Minnesota and Colorado which was SantorumÂ’s victories. They want to create the impression that the Republicans will ban contraception, which is totally insane, but theyÂ’re floating it out and theyÂ’re bringing it out there. And this move on ObamaÂ’s part was part of injecting that issue.

Let's skip the inevitable smackdown and just note the conclusion: I am going Charles Johnson in carrying the left's water.

It's not as if I'm trying to warn people against electoral calamity and walking directly into someone else's campaign strategy. No, I'm going Charles Johnson.

Always remember that if someone disagrees with you tactically or on some political issues, the best and most accurate reply is to insult him as a "RINO."

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (388)
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

Question, by the way.

Obama talks a lot about the rich paying their fare share. And suggests it's patriotic to overpay taxes.

That being the case, why do the rich not purchase the Chevy Volt without the subsidy? Sure, it'll cost $7500 more (or $10,000 more, according to Obama's new budget).

Is that not patriotic? Why do Obama's rich minions need to be bribed into (supposed) virtue?

Anyway, the rich win, the poor lose.

That's not a surprising outcome in socialism.

In case you haven’t been shopping for a Volt — and odds are, you haven’t — the vehicle carries a hefty $41,000 price tag. So what kind of person benefits from that tax credit? General Motors says the average income of a Volt buyer is $175,000 per year. And according to Bill Visnic, senior editor for Edmunds.com, “The Volt appeals to an affluent, progressive demographic.” In other words: rich yuppies.

The Daily Caller reports that the subsidy “would cost taxpayers $100 million each year if it is approved by Congress, presuming only 10,000 new-technology autos are sold each year.” And if the President reaches his goal of putting 1 million of those kinds of cars on the road by 2015, the subsidy could cost $10 billion.

Why is the subsidy necessary? It’s no big mystery. Despite the slick marketing, high-gas mileage, and environmentally friendly cachet that comes along with them, the cars just aren’t selling. In January, General Motors sold 603 Volts — almost twice as many as in January 2010, but less than half of its total sales in December. And in 2011, GM missed its projected sales volume for the vehicle, shipping 7,671 of the vehicles — well short of its target of 10,000.

...

To be clear: $10,000 in taxpayer funds to subsidize the purchase of an electric car versus $8,000 to give a child a choice in education. We know what the President chose. Which would you pick?

During the ObamaCare debate, there was some question whether Obama would choose to lose his progressive base or the independents who hated ObamaCare.

Not a question at all, I thought. Progressives give you money and votes; Independents, at most, will give you votes (and they'll tend to split votes fairly evenly besides).

So, forced to choose, you go with the people giving you the money.

As Allah noted last night, Obama also chose to kill Keystone. Sure, tens of thousands of construction workers would have had jobs. But they don't donate money -- and the Sierra Club and other progressive "environmental" groups do.

Now, as between poor people in DC, who are voting for Obama no matter what, and the green lobby, or especially the cash-rich Teachers unions -- who does Obama side with?

The ones with the money.

Not really all that hard to explain. Odd thing about socialism -- while some of the rich claim they want a socialist society, they want the costs of their preferred mode of government to fall on others, too.

Which itself isn't surprising, either. Once you've got the socialist frame of mind, why shouldn't your preferred socialist mode of government come out of someone else's pockets, too?

Posted by: Ace at 07:29 AM | Comments (218)
Post contains 556 words, total size 3 kb.

@jimmiebr tweets:

I love you more than my d20. Well, not the one that always rolls high. The other ones, though. Sure.

...as a rejected Candy Heart message.

Seems like a subject we could do well with.

Oh, and the trailer for Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is out.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:01 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 52 words, total size 2 kb.

Follow 'The Daily DOOM' on Twitter: @AoSHQDOOM.

I am a "demographics is destiny" guy, and this City Journal article about California's demographics since 1970 or so is a good explanation of why I feel that way. Here's a little taste:

The poor Mexican immigrants who have fueled the transformation—84 percent of the state’s Hispanics have Mexican origins—bring an admirable work ethic and a respect for authority too often lacking in America’s native-born population. Many of their children and grandchildren have started thriving businesses and assumed positions of civic and economic leadership. But a sizable portion of Mexican, as well as Central American, immigrants, however hardworking, lack the social capital to inoculate their children reliably against America’s contagious underclass culture. The resulting dysfunction is holding them back and may hold California back as well.

Speaking of uncomfortable demographic truths...Victor Davis Hanson hits the same note I've hit myself: there is no such creature as a 'European'. There is only the same collection of Germans, Frenchmen, Walloons, Flemings, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and Greeks that there has always been.

I want you to sit down in a comfortable chair and make sure you have good light and maybe a hot drink to savor while you read this. It may be the most sublimely stupid piece of op-ed "journalism" ever committed to print. There is a certain kind of genius to its gemlike perfection: it is utterly stupid, with no glimpses of wit or clue anywhere. It is a perfect spherical mass of pure weapons-grade idiocy. When you are done reading, and have enjoyed your belly-laughs, do the poor ink-stained wretches who excreted this little turd a kindness and send them a link to Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen". more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:36 AM | Comments (262)
Post contains 645 words, total size 6 kb.

Santorum has surged among Republican voters who as recently as 2010 claimed to oppose earmarks, big government, and over-regulation. Once upon a time they also wanted to reform entitlement and welfare programs and to curtail government meddling in the free market. Yes, I'm talking about the Tea Party, and, yes, this gets right back to my point that inconsistent voters will behave inconsistently (and therefore get no respect).

Rick Santorum passionately defends earmarks, even today. There has been no come-to-Jesus moment for the unrepentant former Senator and Congressman, who during his 16 years inside the Beltway racked up a $1 billion in earmarks. During that time, Santorum sided with Democrats to block cuts to federally-funded food stamps programs and to raise the minimum wage. He sought (and got) money for "green" projects in Pennsylvania and, among numerous other wasteful votes, voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Tea Partiers, you have some 'splainin' to do. I know, I know. You don't like Romney because you only think he's saying what you want to hear. Now, I don't believe that, but explain to me how Romney preaching fiscal conservatism is worse than Santorum, who isn't even pretending to support it.

Here he is in a 2006 campaign video (you know, the year he lost badly) saying the Bush 43 White House probably called him a lot of names because he fought their efforts to cut Amtrak funding. His mailer that year touted a great many big government achievements, including this notable brag:

Just what was the Gas Affordability and Security Act of 2006? Let's look.

• Criminalizes conduct that's already a crime under both state and federal law.
• Establishes a federal task force within the FTC to help state AGs prosecute oil and gas companies.
• Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to award funding for an ultra-low sulfur diesel plant.
• Creates a tax credit for teleworking and encourages federal employees to telework.

Doesn't sound very conservative to me. The GAS Act had all the hallmarks of the big government excess the Tea Party was trying to get away from in 2009 and 2010: new redundant federal criminal laws, federal commissions, picking winners and losers in the energy market, and, um, teleslacking federal employees.

Oh, did I mention Santorum voted for Sotomayor? Yeah, he did. At least he's not bragging about that anymore.

What say you, Tea Partiers?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:26 AM | Comments (472)
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

First, a "news" item.

There are two excellent Obama budget deficit roundups that tell you everything you need to know, one from Guy Benson and one from David Freddoso.

The Beeb is reporting that stem cells of the adult variety have been used to repair scarring of the heart.

Washington became the fourth state to legislatively enact gay marriage yesterday. Marriages will not begin immediately; there's a 90 day waiting period. During that period, opponents will be gathering signatures to put a referendum on the law on the November ballot. In a similar effort, Maine voters repealed their legislatively-enacted gay marriage law in 2009. Rick Santorum wasted no time hustling out to Washington to meet with opponents of the law.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Time To Sell Your Amazon Stock

Because the Mistress of Disaster, Jamie Gorelick,  has found a new cronyist perch target and this time it's Amazon:

So if you liked her work creating the pre-Patriot Act "firewall", her conflict-of-interest at 9/11 Commission, her pre-crash career at Fannie Mae, her defense of Duke University during the 2006 Duke lacrosse case and her recent work protecting BP after the spill, well then you're gonna love her new gig at Amazon.

Time to short AMZN I guess. I don't quite see how she's going to run it into the ground but at this point I've come to respect her DOOMy powers.

And many thanks to Doug Ross who keeps track of the M of D so we don't have to.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:10 PM | Comments (864)
Post contains 656 words, total size 9 kb.

And bear in mind: DC is a federal district, so this is the only city in America where the feds actually have a responsibility for school funding and educational policy.

The D.C. OSP has been highly successful. According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate.

And at $8,000, the vouchers are a bargain compared to the estimated $18,000 spent per child by D.C. Public Schools.

And that's the problem, isn't it?
.

Posted by: Ace at 03:36 PM | Comments (324)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Perfect.

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Glad we've gotten all the Big Things squared away so we can now focus laser-like on the sin and moral emptiness of people having sex while avoiding pregnancy.

And if you say "gee he's just talking about this stuff:" Um, if a plumber starts talking about the bad rap iron pipes have gotten over the years, and how they're really pretty safe, I assume he's open to the idea of using iron pipes in my house.

He is a plumber, speaking about what he considers to be his area of expertise.

So when a presidential candidate starts talking about the importance of the president taking the lead on the evils of birth control, yes, I assume he believes this to be within the proper functions of the executive.

And I do not think he wants to limit it to "just talking." You know how people typically introduce ideas that are currently unpopular and outside the Overton Window? They first suggest "talking about" them. As we saw with Entitlement Reform.

Plus, he himself says these are important "public policy issues."

Not personal morality issues. Public policy issues. In other words, the public, voting, or expressing its will through its chosen legislators, gets a say on these "issues."

Again, I know most presidents donÂ’t talk about those things, and maybe people donÂ’t want us to talk about those things, but I think itÂ’s important that you are who you are. IÂ’m not running for preacher. IÂ’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

No, they're not. They are not public issues -- my neighbor should not have a vote on my contraception choices -- and they are not policy questions, either. I do not want the government establishing a "policy" on birth control, either way.

No thank you.

I realize that you think you've gotten it All Figured Out and want to just help me See the Way, but I don't like it when lefties show such perfect arrogance, and I'm not loving those on the right who have no modesty about the agenda they would inflict on the public by coercive law, either.

Couple of Videos: The video the Daily Kos links is down due to a copyright claim, but here are some other ones, making similar (if not identical) points.

In the second one he talks up the harm of birth control, though in a much more "this is my opinion" way than in the quote above.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (1267)
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.