There was once a conception, popular in the press, that it was supposed to be a check on the government. And that only an antagonistic and hectoring posture towards the Current Power could keep that power from degenerating into abuses.

Much like a criminal doesn't commit a major crime if he thinks he's being watched. But when he thinks there's no one watching -- that's when he does something just terrible.

The press used to believe this. It was always something of an aggrandizing, self-flattering conceit, but certainly it had some good to it.

Contrast that Old School position with the New Skool "reporters" who imagine their jobs as consisting chiefly of supporting and defending the current Government Power (so long as it's liberal, I mean) and attacking and criticizing those who themselves would challenge Government Power.

The old conceit might have been annoying -- but the new one is flat-out dangerous. And will, in fact, lead to abuses.

Sharyl Attkisson is of the old school.

One of the last reporters in major media who will actually ask the administration uncomfortable questions, one of the last reporters in major media who thinks it's important to demand questions from the President, rather than offering excuses to his critics.

Posted by: Ace at 03:12 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

From Ed Driscoll (with further thoughts, this story now appearing at Commentary.

Over the weekend, CNN anchor and reporter Tom Foreman wrote a piece for CNNÂ’s website explaining the genesis of a tradition he has kept for the last four years. He was absolutely correct that his behavior required an explanation, but the one he provided was far from adequate. Foreman has been writing President Obama a letter every single day of ObamaÂ’s first term. Some letters offered Obama advice, while others explained to Obama why Foreman rarely buys a lottery ticket. Some talked about his family, others about sports. He wondered whether Obama had read any of the 1,460 letters, and he asked the president to call if he got the chance. Some demonstrated ForemanÂ’s lack of self-awareness more clearly than others...

This is a read the whole thing article. I can't quote the whole thing. But here's some more:

It also presents CNN with a bit of a challenge. They’re not hiding Foreman’s letters, after all–they’re promoting them. And CNN reporter Jim Acosta was observed on-air expressing his giddiness over being close to Obama at the inauguration. Of the three major cable news stations Fox has always been on the right, CNN the left, and MSNBC far out on the fringe. But CNN has sought to move MSNBC into the mainstream left and position itself in the center. It is unlikely that a single person in the country believes this. And it makes CNN look a bit ridiculous, like they’re the only ones not in on the joke.

Liberal journalism professor Jay Rosen has for quite some time advised media companies to just embrace their biases and stop pretending.

I'll add some thoughts in a following post.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (234)
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

In his first big comments since Mayor Booker announced his non-intention intentions, the Phialdelphia Inquirer relays the incredibly old Senator still has a lot of life left in him. The ancient one spoke up about his indecision on running again, citing his desire to do more: "I've got a lot of work to do yet, serious things and we pride ourselves (in) my office and my team (on) getting things done. That's the focus. I'm not thinking about the politics right now".

As for the challenge from Mayor Cory Booker, he welcomed him to the fight but warned it wasn't his to walk with:
"He's entitled to do it," his oldness croaked out. "He'll have to stand on his record and I'm sure he won't be a lone soldier out there drooling at the mouth and wanting this cushy job that we have here."

Either Lautenberg or Booker would exit the Democratic primary as the clear favorite heading into November. Republicans haven't had a competitive race in over a decade, and with easier targets elsewhere, New Jersey will stay blue. Perhaps the only benefit to Republicans if Lautenberg runs again and Booker steps back is he can't be replaced at the last minute by Democrats with Lautenberg in the event Lautenberg is no longer viable and a threat to keeping the Lautenberg seat.

Posted by: CAC at 03:07 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Polling has commenced since Jay Rockefeller announced his retirement at the end of his term. Shelley Moore Capito is currently enjoying a massive lead in a race that is still a year-and-three-quarters out, so look for the state Democrats to fall behind a "conservative" candidate and close this gap, fast. I have this race as a toss-up this far out, and it will remain such well into 2014 even if Capito polls strong since the state has a notorious history of electing "conservative" Democrats. In head-to-head polling giving Senator Manchin a 21-point-positive approval rating, the Harper release finds Capito leading Nick Rahall by 18, Carte Goodwin by 25, and Robin Davis by 27 points.

Plenty of time for Republicans to screw this one up, I'm sure.

Posted by: CAC at 01:54 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Dire.

An unprecedented $14trn (£8.8trn) greening of the global economy is the only way to ensure long-term sustainable growth, according to a stark warning delivered to political and business leaders as they descended on the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday.

Only a sustained and dramatic shift to infrastructure and industrial practices using low-carbon technology can save the world and its economy from devastating global warming, according to a Davos-commissioned alliance led by the former Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, in the most dramatic call so far to fight climate change on business grounds....

The extra spending amounts to roughly $700bn a year until 2030 and would provide a much-needed economic stimulus as well as reduce the costs associated with global warming further down the line, said Mr Calderon, who leads the alliance.

I have no problem with other countries pissing away their wealth -- and the hypothetical, ever-dwindling wealth of their children and grandchildren -- on this. If that's what they want.

Be my guest. Chin-chin.

Posted by: Ace at 01:28 PM | Comments (175)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Some of you were just saying "This couldn't possibly get worse."

Like everyone else who's ever uttered those words, you were wrong.

Surely American literature has reached new heights with the publication of GuestHouse Games, in which Barack and Michelle Obama, “alone in their isolated beachfront guesthouse in the tropical paradise of Kailua, Hawaii,” are “drawn into the ancient Hawaiian spiritual world and into the exploration of their own deepest and most forbidden desires.”

Is Reggie Love in this?

I don't even know what that means.

(Yes I do.)

...

uStarNovels, the publisher of this pioneering work, describes itself as a purveyor of “specially crafted original erotica and erotic romance” featuring “characters that are relatable for everyone” and “experiences that are credible.” Chris Matthews, brace yourself for more thrills up your leg.

Here are some other characters who might get a turn on the President's Staff:

Kenji, the guesthouse's young Hawaiian gardener with whom the leading lady feels an intense erotic connection. He is involved in one of the sex scenes with the couple.

Leah and Stellan, an attractive and exotic couple who own the local store. Their ties to the islands are far deeper than just business and they will play a significant role in the leading couple's search for the truth about the mystery and about themselves. They are involved in sex scenes with the couple.

Marisol Ramirez, the woman who runs the guesthouse and has left the leading couple in charge during her vacation.

Stitch, the guesthouse cat.

In related news, Vera Baker.

The book is called "Fan fiction." Fan fiction often couples, or "ships," two characters who are not actually having sex.

So.

Thanks to gigg.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (410)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

So says the Washington Post, and Governor Susana Martinez (R) would pick his successor and the Republicans would inch one seat closer to a Senate majority.

In other news, my stash has gone missing.

Posted by: CAC at 12:04 PM | Comments (128)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember Obama the Centrist, the story the media sold the public for four years?

Now that he's won a second time, they don't have to lie anymore, and they're now conceding he's a liberal.

But if this is new information to them, where are the stories in which they trace Obama's evolution into a liberal? Or their own apologies for, and anger over, being hoodwinked for six years?

Of course this is not new information to them; they knew Obama was a liberal at the same time we did, back when we first heard of him, in 2004. In fact, he was the Great Liberal Hope.

They just lied about it. And now, without apology or explanation, they drop the pretense of Obama the Centrist.

Incidentally, part of the reason they're doing this is to argue that the nation is now center-left, that the nation has been won over to the liberal cause.

But how can that be, since Obama claimed to not be a liberal, and claimed he was not running as a liberal, but as a centrist? And how can that be, since the media attacked anyone claiming otherwise?

I was struck by Chuck Todd yesterday, now telling us Obama is a liberal crusader, only moments after he was sworn in as president for a second term.

Something he would have called you a "racist" or "ideologue" for claiming just moments before.

Not a single person in the media will acknowledge this, of course. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:22 AM | Comments (304)
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Bad news for the pro-life position, but maybe not as bad as it seems.

According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions…

In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision from being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about thisÂ…

By comparison, just 24 percent now want the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, including 21 percent who feel strongly about this position.

Much of this change, the NBC/WSJ pollsters say, is coming from African Americans, Latinos and women without college degrees — all of whom increasingly oppose the Supreme Court decision from being overturned.

I highlighted Latinos to rebut this enduring myth that Latinos are "naturally conservative" because of their "religious and family values" or whatnot.

As far the topline number, I don't think it's as bad for the pro-life position as it seems simply because I never believed the number when it showed a majority supported the pro-life position, either. In any group sharing an opinion, one third or so will be strong believers, one third will be moderately strong believers, and one third will be light (at best) believers.

This last group is very capable of changing their position at the drop of a hat, because they barely believe in their position. It would be more accurate to say they really don't care about the abortion issue at all than that they are pro-life or pro-choice; if you force them to answer the question, they'll say pro-life or pro-choice, depending on which side is favored by people they know, but even if they flip to the other side it's doubtful they care strongly about that, either.

So I never really believed there was a true "pro-life majority" in the first place. What there was a significant pro-life majority, 35% or maybe 40%, plus enough leaners willing to say they were pro-life to get the number to break 51%. Now a bunch of the latter have changed their nominal position, but they're no more strong pro-choicers than they were pro-lifers.

But that's not to say that the numbers mean nothing at all. The fact that some of these leaners have switched -- most likely for superficial and ephemeral reasons -- does indicate that at least in the realm of superficial and ephemeral beliefs, the pro-choice position now holds the edge.

Why would this be? I can think of a few reasons.

First, unplanned pregnancy is a major lifestyle change for the unmarried. For the married, and especially those who are married and already have some kids, it may be a lifestyle change and a major inconvenience, but it's usually not scary. As fewer and fewer people get married (and people get married at an older age) the pro-choice position is going to increase, because for this cohort unplanned pregnancy is a scary thing, and they want an Out, whatever the philosophical or moral implications might be.

Second, pro-lifers have been overplaying their hand. If someone's in a relationship and isn't sure where he stands, he can issue an ultimatum, either we take this to the next level, or we call it quits. The benefit to such an ultimatum is that it will be a clarifying moment, as a pointed question must now be answered; but the danger there, of course, is that the lightly-attached other might just call it quits.

The Tea Party is not (I'm told) primarily concerned with social issues, but it does definitely stand for Clarification on Important Issues and Issuing an Ultimatum. I think that spirit has been contagious on the right, and those who favor pro-life positions are also running on Conviction platforms now, no longer as willing to fudge issues and offer crowd-pleasing but empty evasions. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdoch, of course, did not offer such evasions, but instead proudly offered their true convictions about the matter.

Well, just as in issuing a relationship ultimatum, issuing a firm, no-evasions stance on a hot-button issue which everyone has some opinion about is dangerous. Sure, it's possible that some people, having heard you announce your position with clarity and courage, will move to your camp, and may move from being light believers to moderately-strong believers or even strong believers.

As many political activists say, "At what point do we chose a hill to die on?" Those with strong political beliefs are tired of being told that this hill, that hill, all the hills are conveniently in this category of Hills Upon Which We Must Not Die.

But of course there's also the downside of the Strong Position, Clearly Announced: Those who are merely lightly attracted to your cause may just decide they're Just Not That Into You, that you're asking more than they're willing to give, and break things off to find other suitors. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (600)
Post contains 2070 words, total size 12 kb.

John Boehner has been running around saying any hike in the debt ceiling must be offset by a dollar for dollar (or more) cut in spending for a long time.

Now he will bring a bill to the floor of the House tomorrow that will suspend the debt ceiling for four months and include ZERO cuts in spending.

House leaders, after unveiling the legislation Monday, are planning to hold a vote Wednesday on their plan to allow the government to keep borrowing through May 18.

While the short-term increase is getting mixed reviews, the second plank of the legislation -- meant to pressure Senate Democrats to pass a budget -- has also raised questions.

Under the proposal, Congress would withhold the pay of lawmakers in either the House or the Senate if their chamber fails to pass a budget by April 15. House Republicans have passed budgets for two consecutive years, but the Senate hasn't passed one since Obama's first year in office.

...

As for the debt ceiling provision, the legislation does not set a specific limit; rather it would automatically increase the limit by the amount required to fund U.S. government obligations through May 18.

The pay withholding thing is a gimmick. I'm torn on because it's a stupid feel good symbolic act (they will all get paid eventually) but there are a lot of idiots who like stupid things. Maybe this will get their attention.

As for forcing the Senate to pass a budget, Chuck Schumer says no problem but be careful what you wish for.

Senate Democrats announced Sunday that they will oblige and produce a budget — but warned it will include higher taxes that Republicans oppose.

"We're going to do a budget this year," Schumer said hours before Obama officially began his second term. "And it's going to have revenues in it. And our Republican colleagues better get used to that fact."

Great, so we're back to the GOP defending "millionaires and billionaires" again. And I'm sure some members of Team GOP will say, "Oh but the final cuts will retroactively include this four months of debt increase". Does anyone think Democrats (or Republicans) are going to "pay for" something they've already gotten for free?

Before you answer that remember, the "payment" for the last debt ceiling hike in 2011 still hasn't kicked in.

Obama is going to start with the $800 billion in revenue Boehner generously put on the table for nothing and demand that that be counted against the debt hike so that "dollar for dollar" promise becomes "some cents from taxes, some cents from "cuts that won't happen"" an over all spending will go merrily along.

You can say the GOP has a weak hand an this will be the best it can do. Fine, then stop promising to fight and win. If the GOP is going to cave on all of this at some point, better to do it now in one giant surrender than spend the next 6 months or more surrendering on a weekly basis.

Added: AlexTheChick reminds me of something I was asking about yesterday but never got an answer....Why can't Obama use a 4 month 'suspension' in the debt ceiling to borrow enough to cover for the next year or two? The market couldn't handle that kind of float but the Fed could and probably would.

Will the GOP write in strong enough limiting language or are they inviting Obama to just take this mess off their hands?

UPDATE: A source on the Hill (stop laughing, I have some) says the language of the debt ceiling suspension limits how much Obama can borrow based on the date of incurring the obligation.

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEBT CEILING.

(a) Suspension.—Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply for the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on May 18, 2013.

(b) Special Rule Relating To Obligations Issued During Suspension Period.—Effective May 19, 2013, the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, as increased by section 3101A of such title, is increased to the extent that—

(1) the face amount of obligations issued under chapter 31 of such title and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) outstanding on May 19, 2013, exceeds

(2) the face amount of such obligations outstanding on the date of the enactment of this Act.

An obligation shall not be taken into account under paragraph (1) unless the issuance of such obligation was necessary to fund a commitment incurred by the Federal Government that required payment before May 19, 2013.

So there's that.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:34 AM | Comments (480)
Post contains 850 words, total size 6 kb.