Ace of Spades HQ

February 05, 2013

Legal, Ethical, & Wise: Holder's DoJ Defends Policy of Unilteral Assassinations of American Citizens
— Ace

The left is showing its strong objections to this policy and its legal defense by saying absolutely nothing at all.

That'll show 'em!

More: Reason recalls that that President Kill-List is a Nobel Prize recipient.

What else is in the news today regarding the most transparent administration in history? A report documenting that 54 countries around the globe have played along with the CIA when it comes to torturing suspects in such a way that the U.S. can pretend it doesn't do that sort of thing anymore.
There is a darkly comic aspect to this, I suppose: Here's a president who once taught classes in constitutional law and swore up and down that America doesn't torture, that he was against "dumb wars" waged by his predecessors, that he was more transparent than a glass of triple-filtered water, and who won a goddamned Nobel Peace Prize! And he turns out to be not just a little iffy when it comes to being constrained in his willingness to break all sorts of rules but downright godawful.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (462)
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Building The Narrative: GOP At Least As Responsible For Sequester As Obama According To The Democratic Machine Media (DMM)
— DrewM

Someone on Twitter said the best part of Twitter is watching the liberal media get their stories straight and build their narrative in real time. Here's a great example.

Obama wants to delay the sequester saying they are dangerous to the economy (which he said was "poised for growth"). This is rather rich coming from the guy who proposed it to begin with.

Since that's somewhat inconvenient, the media has to get to work.

But even if we assume that the idea did originate in the White House, we need to remember one more thing: The debt ceiling agreement that contained the sequestration cuts got significantly more Republican support than Democratic support.
In fact, 174 of 240 House Republicans voted for it, while just half of House Democrats joined them (95 out of 190 votes). In the Senate, Democrats carried the vote, providing 45 of the 74 Â“yesÂ” votes, but Senate Republicans also supported it by a 28-19 margin.
So in total, more than 70 percent of congressional Republicans voted for the deal that included the sequester, while 58 percent of Democrats voted for it.
...
And by repeatedly referring to the cuts as ObamaÂ’s idea (something that is technically correct), they are trying to win the war of semantics, which the White House has been more successful at in recent months.
But Democrats have a pretty effective case to make that the GOP owns the sequester just as much as the White House does. After all, Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, and the bill passed with bipartisan support.

Ah it's "technically correct" but the Democratic spin on it is pretty helpful so the Washington Post dutifully repeats it.

Of course, one story alone does not a narrative make. So NBC (naturally) follows suit.

Important context > RT @fixaaron: Who is responsible for the sequester? - The Fix wapo.st/YAUwtG
— Mike O'Brien (@mpoindc) February 5, 2013

Ah, "context". You see, truth isn't enough. It's "context" that matters.

Here's how it works....if the GOP opposes an Obama idea, it's simply being obstructionists. But if they agree to an Obama idea has part of the Holy Grail of bi-partisan "compromise", then they own the idea as much, and probably a little bit more really, than Obama does.

Keep any eye out for this theory, I think it's going to be very popular in the coming days.

Bias? What media bias?

Something I forgot to note: Sequester has been around for over a year. But the within minutes of Obama declaring it to be something he's against, the Washington Post runs out to declare that the evilllll Republicans are responsible for this.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:29 AM | Comments (231)
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

CNN's Ashleigh Banfield: You Should Be Happy About Traffic Jams Because They Mean the Economy's Booming
— Ace

Ignore reports of a cratering GDP and rising unemployment -- the real leading economic indicator to keep an eye on is Time in Traffic.

And speaking of, I just posted a big fat tip about CNN's new lineup, which will strongly emphasize economic news. And there's so much good economic news to report.

Such as traffic jams.

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

US Government Sues Standard & Poor for $1 Billion, Supposedly Because S&P Rated Its Own Crap Mortgage-Backed Securities Too Nicely
— Ace

You can't misrepresent our account ledgers -- only we can misrepresent our account ledgers.

Or, it might have something to do with S&P downgrading the US government's credit rating.

Partly, I think, the move against S&P (the other rating agencies are also in the governmentÂ’s crosshairs) is a an example of the time-honored practice of scapegoating. People are looking for someone to blame and the rating agencies seem like low-hanging fruit: Â“Hey, they told me this might be a great (though risky) investment, and I lost money! Whom can I blame?Â”
But I suspect this is not only about scapegoating. I suspect it is also about retaliation. We are living with the most fiscally incontinent administration in U.S. history, perhaps in world history. Both S&P and MoodyÂ’s took note of this incontinence and broadcast the news by downgrading U.S. debt in 2011. The result? A $1 billion lawsuit against S&P. Merely post hoc? Or do you discern a teensy bit of propter hoc there as well? I do.

That reference is now deleted from the NYT's report, though it survives on the Internet.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Chris Christie Appears on Letterman
— Ace

Via Sexton, this edited clip of highlights.

Letterman's big question is "What do you think of me?"

Christie is actually funny, for whatever that counts for. I don't know if it counts for all that much. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (328)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

McCain: Don't Filibuster Hagel
— Ace

Thus forsaking the only likely avenue of keeping an idiot (and anti-semite... allegedly) out of the important SecDef job.

The story's at Politico. But it's really not a story so much as a sentence. McCain says that filibustering Hagel would be "inappropriate," and the proper method of registering one's disapproval is to simply vote "Nay" on his nomination.

The Democrats, of course, will vote lockstep in favor of him, and thus he'll become SecDef. The only way to stop this would be through the filibuster, with 40 Republicans refusing to close debate on his nomination.

Posted by: Ace at 07:19 AM | Comments (257)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

McCain: Don't Filibuster Hagel
— Ace

Thus forsaking the only likely avenue of keeping an idiot (and anti-semite... allegedly) out of the important SecDef job.

Posted by: Ace at 07:19 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Calls For A Delay In His Sequestration Plan
— DrewM

Of course. The budget must never be cut. It's a physical impossibility.

Pres Obama will call for spending cuts and revenue hikes to give Congress more time to come up with long-term plan to avoid the sequester.
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) February 5, 2013

Odds of GOP objecting to this in any meaningful way? 0%

Remember this terrible, no good idea was Obama's from the start. The GOP agreed to it too. But they will all pretend it was imposed on them by some mysterious outside force and now they will be very serious about finding spending cuts to off set the debt ceiling hike from 2011. Perhaps they could form a joint House-Senate group to find the cuts. They could call it a "Super Committee". Nah, that's crazy, it would never work.

Update: Obama has a 1:15 event to talk about sequester and avoiding it in...say it with me...."a balanced way".

Update 2: Is this the beginning of a GOP victory and Phillip Klein's "Maneuver X"?

Color me skeptical. Obama and the Democrats don't want to cut domestic spending, period. And they want to raise taxes. Why exactly would Obama trade defense cuts (which are the only cuts Obama wants) for actual entitlement reform which is poison to the Democrats?

Maybe I'm just too down on the GOP but my guess is Obama simply wants to keep domestic spending growing and if that means giving the GOP an out on defense cuts, he's ok with that.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:47 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Betting on Yourself: Republicans Hope to Spark Revival by Implementing Red-State Model in Republican-Controled States
— Ace

Simple enough theory: If they won't listen to your rhetoric, maybe they'll listen to your results.

f successful, the combined tax cuts and pared government spending could reignite slumbering state economies and draw in new residents, while positioning Mr. Brownback and governors such as LouisianaÂ’s Bobby Jindal and IndianaÂ’s Mike Pence for potential White House bids.
...
The tax gambles under way in the red states contrast sharply with proposals put forward by some Democratic governors. The governors of Minnesota and Massachusetts have proposed raising income taxes while cutting the sales tax. The trend promises to create unusually stark divisions between conservative and liberal states.

Posted by: Ace at 06:38 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Tuesday Morning Link Dump
— Pixy Misa