Obama had a scripted response to Mitt Romney in the second debate in which he turned to him and recited a pre-written, rehearsed speech in which he insisted "How dare you, sir" to any suggestion that anyone in his Administration had lied over this silly Benghazi matter, and really, wasn't the most important thing the deaths of four Americans?

It apparently worked. It's stupid rhetoric, but that's about the American public's comfort speed these days, stupid. Yes, the most important thing is that four Americans are dead; that doesn't mean that other things aren't also important. And the other things naturally draw more attentions, for two reasons:

1, There's not a great many ways to ask if someone is dead? Once you get to "Are you sure he's dead, and not, say, just hiding?" you're pretty much all out of questions about his alleged state of death.

2, There is nothing that can be done to improve the situation of the dead. There are, however, things that can be done to improve the functioning and candor of the government which made them dead.

Looking at Hillary's now-infamous "What does it matter?" screech, I believe two things:

1, this is a pre-scripted response. She's attempting to do what Obama did in Denver, play the How Dare You card, by noting that four dead Americans is a more important fact than anything else. (But not explaining why "most important" is suddenly synonymous with "solely important.")

2, I think this was poll-tested. I think most Democrats do not understand Benghazi because they don't want to dig deeply into a major Administrative failure and would like to just assume that everything went okay (except for the murders). And because the media doesn't cover it much, they're permitted to easily self-select out of the group who knows anything about this. Thus, I would imagine the most frequently offered response about Benghazi, in focus groups, by Democrats, is exactly this: "What does it matter?"

Thus, Hillary is attempting to not only play the How Dare You card (with How Can You Ask Such Trivial Questions When Their Are Four Dead Americans power-up card), but is also attempting an emotional catharsis on behalf of the bewildered Democrats who don't understand all the fuss. By channeling that precise emotional response -- "What's all the fuss?" -- she connects herself emotionally to Democrats.

They're thinking just that, and feeling rather bad about being ignorant of a major foreign policy failure that sure sounds important and sounds like the sort of thing an Enlightened Liberal Bien Pensant should know about; but in comes Hillary to reassure them that their ignorance is in fact a sort of Enlightenment. "What does it matter?!" Indeed, I imagine a lot of ignorant Democrats' heads were nodding at that-- in excusing herself, Hillary also excuses those Democrats from the responsibility of taking an interest in important affairs.

Thus, they have a big incentive to believe her lie -- in thinking well of Hillary, they also get to think well of themselves. And thus they'll latch on to it.

People love hearing things that make them feel well about themselves. Politicians tend to talk about the "basic wisdom and goodness of the American voter" an awful, awful lot just as the American voters are deciding who to give jobs to.

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 568 words, total size 3 kb.

Background here.

Boehner is now speaking on the floor in favor of the plan. He thinks he has the vote and even I don't think he's stupid enough to bring this to the floor without knowing it's going to pass. But it's Boehner and the GOP, so....

House Democrat leadership is opposing the maneuver but aren't whipping against it.

Senate Democrats don't seemed too worked up about it either way, so it'll probably pass. And then....who knows.

Update (12:47 eastern): As happens often with the House, they ran long. The House is now voting on a Democratic motion to recommit with instructions that will be killed. Then they will move on to the underlying bill.

The House passed the plan with a majority of Republicans voting yes. The "Boehner Rule" of getting 1 for 1 spending cuts for hikes in the debt ceiling is dead.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:53 AM | Comments (258)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Hillary is doing her thing on Benghazi in front of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee. Four or five questioners in A republican is finally getting to Susan Rice.

Overall Hillary is saying the House needs to give me money for embassy defense. She's turning this into a victory lap.

Still no mention of "YouTube".

Today's hearing is a political sideshow. If you're interested in the real challenges facing diplomats in non-permisive environments, listen to my talk with security expert Robert Caruso from October.

I'm not going to update with every statement of hers but she just said, "I wasn't involved in the talking points process" regarding Susan Rice's Sunday show appearance.

Obama isn't the only one who knows how to throw someone under the bus.

First testy exchange comes from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI). He goes after Hillary for the protest story without any facts. Hillary angrily responds (literally pounding the table) saying "We had 4 dead Americans! Was it a protest?...What difference at this point does it make?"

Unfortunately, Johnson had no answer to why it's a problem the administration spent 2 weeks lying. Hillary hid behind the bodies of 4 dead Americans and it will play well.

[Update JohnE.] Shorter Benghazi hearing:

Video below the fold: more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:03 AM | Comments (421)
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

• Hillary To Finally Testify On Benghazi
  
• Why Benghazi Hasn't Brought Down Hillary And Why It Won't
  
• Sick Creepy Video Celebrates 40 Years Of Abortion
  
• Boston Anti-Crime Advocate Shoots Girlfriend In The Head With Illegal Gun
  
• Shelia Jackson Lee On Houston College Shooting: "We Must Work To Ensure Gun Free Zones Are Enforced"
  
• It Looks Like Netanyahu Will Retain Power After Yesterday's Elections
  
• Stricken Dolphin Asks Diver For Help
  
• British To Vote On Membership In EU By 2015
  
• Amendments That Didn't Make It Into The New NY Gun Law
  
• Reminder: The Media Are Scum
  
• Bitter Clingers Again
  
• The Bank Of Japan Is Coordinating Policy With The Japanese Government
  
• The Mob Knows A Racket When They See One
  
• America This Is You - An Infographic
  
• Obama Likely To Bypass Congress To Fulfull Climate Change Pledge
  
• Problem With Universal Background Check For Gun Buyers
  
• Proposed MO Law Would Require Parents To Notify Their Childs School If They Own A Gun(video)
  
• China Old, But Not Busted
  
• Vet Stands Up And Speaks At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum
  
• Shinzo Abe's Dangerous Mixed Signals
  
• Cities Declare War On Food Trucks
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:20 AM | Comments (150)
Post contains 194 words, total size 4 kb.

So the prospects of a massive war in Eve came and went this week. When I say massive, I really mean it. The largest Power Blocks in the Game looked at each other, rolled up the sleeves and began a staring contest. If this went down, it would be a new Great War.

More below the Fold more...

Posted by: Gang of Gaming Morons! at 09:17 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 2574 words, total size 17 kb.

[Andy -- I wouldn't normally swipe an entire post like this, but see the lead-in. Steven, you're welcome to post here anytime.]

If I still had posting privileges to the Green Room, I'd have put this there. But I no longer have any kind of political mikan box to stand on, so I guess I'll put it here. (I thought of asking Ace if he wanted it, but then I decided that would have been pretentious.) So politics, for a change.

Work with me here: there's a highly controversial right, with people on one side of the political fence deeply committed to defending it and people on the other side equally deeply committed to outright eliminating it. The latter deny that it is a right; they think it should be a crime, heavily punished, because it leads to a lot of unnecessary and unjust deaths.

The issue is a major controversy in Congress and in the states, and over the course of decades no consensus emerges. It is deeply contentious. Laws are passed, and new laws override old ones. It is a major factor in election campaigns all over the country every two years. Finally, defenders of this right take to the courts, and after years of effort and loads of appeals, finally get the Supreme Court to issue a landmark opinion declaring that it is indeed a right, protected by the Constitution.

But the opponents won't accept this. Now no longer able to outright outlaw this thing, they instead fiddle around the edges and try to pass laws which have the effect of making it inaccessible, even though it is nominally legal. As an issue it refuses to go away; it still figures in elections all over the country, and shows no sign of any consensus ever appearing.

What am I talking about? Well, actually two things: abortion and gun rights.

Without considering the merits of the issues themselves, it occurred to me the other day that the way the two issues have been handled by proponents and opponents have been surprisingly symmetrical. Understand that I'm not saying the various points of view are equally valid. But in terms of strategy and tactics, the issues are almost mirror images. (Yes, the word "abortion" never appears in the Constitution, and the Second Amendment explicitly is about gun ownership; you don't have to mention that. Also it is irrelevant to the point I am making.)

And, of course, the sides are opposite on each. Defense of abortion is a left-wing position, whereas defense of gun rights is generally considered to be right-wing. (And of course, there are loads of exceptions in both cases.) Even so, it's almost like each side in one issue has been studying what worked for the other side on the other issue, and copying it.

Did the people behind District of Columbia v. Heller study the litigation history of Roe v. Wade?

Posted by: andy at 04:24 AM | Comments (193)
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

A new Q poll has Chris Christie's approval rating at 74 percent. The Democrat who runs closest to Christie (former interim Gov. Dick Codey) trails him by 29 points. Cory Booker leads Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 51-30% in the Democratic primary.

Foreign Policy mag's Daniel Drezner writes an open letter to the NYTimes telling the "paper of record" to bench Tom Friedman for being an utter fool.

For those who were wondering, here's the text (PDF) of the House's debt ceiling bill, with the House and Senate pay withholding provision. It avoids the Twenty Seventh Amendment merely by withholding payment until the earlier of either the last day of the current Congress or the day that a concurrent budget resolution is approved.

Health insurance brokers are trying to prepare their clients for major Obamacare sticker shock. Among other things, premium prices may triple by the end of the year.

Italian sting operations reveal the mafia is heavily involved in green energy subsidies.

And finally, for the lawgeeks, the Supreme Court's gay marriage cases are getting into full swing. Yesterday, the Prop 8 proponents filed the opening brief in their case, which you can read here (PDF). The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) also filed its opening brief in the separate DOMA litigation, which you can read here (PDF).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

We now know black holes can form from neutron star collisions, and we know that some super-massive stars are probably formed by the collision of smaller stars. So even a good sized star merging with another doesn't usually spell doom. However, all super-massive stars have a short life, the more massive, the shorter. Once iron builds up in its core, the star is doomed. Neutron stars, already tightly packed matter, are highly unstable when inter-acting with other high-mass objects (see the aforementioned merger).

So tonight's question:
If you somehow managed to slingshot a neutron star OR >1.4 solar-mass of pure solid iron right into a supermassive star that has already gone through it's Hydrogen->Helium->Carbon->Neon->Oxygen->Silicon phases, have you become death the destroyer of worlds? Or is your attempt at a real Death Star a dud?

Let's ignore the extreme unlikelihood of actually "capturing" and hurling such a neutron star or ball of iron. If you had the means, would it detonate the star?

If this wouldn't, what could you use?

Posted by: CAC at 07:02 PM | Comments (205)
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm drinking scotch and not regretting in the least my choice to leave the tv off all day yesterday.

Today was productive. Got a lot of projects tied up. I went swimming in my lap pool. (Again - not a "1 percenter" -- just relishing what you can find in a crappy housing market.) Ate leftover smoked goods I made on Saturday. And discovered that nobody else was doing an ONT.

Lucky you, I have a lot of bookmarks for just such an occasion. And to be strictly clear, that occasion is officially known as "An ONT from the idiot that said "if nobody else volunteers, I'll do it...""

Without further ado, allow me to waste Ace's bandwidth with stuff krak thinks are worth saving.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:40 PM | Comments (578)
Post contains 689 words, total size 5 kb.

"Tear their throat out!" the headline screams.

Having offered that advice -- which he says wasn't "advice" but "analysis" of Obama's best move (which is, uh, the same thing as advice) -- he now whines that conservatives just aren't capable of understanding the fine distinction between "advice abut Obama's best possible political move" and "analysis of Obama's best possible political move."

When you are on the Fox NewsÂ’ ticker for the wrong reasons, it's time to put things into context.

On the eve of the president's inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker president. I was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a theory of political science and the president's own words about transformational presidencies from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these givens: The president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. "Bloodier-minded when it comes to beating Republicans,” is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts, there is only one logical conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: He must take on Republicans—aggressively.

For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion. Some people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts. I used words like "war" and “pulverize,” and some have responded with threats to me and my family. (“Go for his throat!” some have counseled, echoing the headline.) These words have also liberated some correspondents (USUALLY THE ONES THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!!!) from reading the piece or reading it in the spirit in which it was written. But there were also almost 2,000 other words in the piece, which should put that provocative language in context. What's been lost in the news ticker and Twitter threats is the argument of the piece: This is the only plausible path for a bold, game-changing second term for a president who has positioned himself the way President Obama has.

Let me explain the problem to this fucking imbecile.

First of all, advice is the same as "analysis of your best possible move."

But more importantly, Dickenson would never have written a piece with the headline "GO FOR HIS THROAT!," advising the GOP to "bloody up" Obama. Including before/after the 2010 elections, when such advice would have been, uh, well, advisable.

Only liberals are cheered on by the media to let their ideological freak flags fly. When liberals offer "advice" (or "analysis") to conservatives, it's always the same:

1. We must compromise.

2. We must concede the general outline of the liberal agenda.

3. We must buckle under -- For our survival!

And what bothers us at this point isn't that this is unfair; it is, but we're used to it.

We're just sick to death of being fucking lied to every fucking day by organizations which, although claiming to have the mission of truth, are now dedicated to lying to the audience.

Day in, day out.

They will continue denying the undeniable -- that they are liberal, and root for liberals, and consciously slant their coverage in favor of liberals (and congratulate each other for scoring points on conservatives).

And we will continue to be incensed by it, just as any human being will be incensed by someone telling the same childishly-ridiculous lie to his fucking face over and over and over again.

Posted by: Ace at 04:36 PM | Comments (366)
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.