Fresh off her triumphant effort to push Mitt Romney as the great GOP hope, the Washington Post's "conservative" blogger Jennifer Rubin has been doing her best to build and burn straw men out of amnesty opponents.

Today she reached new highs as an intellectually stunted shill.

On the new Corker-Hoeven amendment she titled her post "Here comes the border security amendment".

We must pause at the title because that's where the hackery begins. You see, not that long ago Rubin told us the border security amendment had already arrived.

BREAKING: Cornyn presents solution for Gang of Eight

In a dramatic breakthrough on immigration reform, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is offering up an amendment to break the log jam and address his and other GOP senatorsÂ’ concerns about border security.

Rubin was so enamored of Cornyn's plan and the positive noises her pet Mitt, er, Marco Rubio was making about it, the next day she assured everyone that the Cornyn amendment wasn't a "poison pill" to kill the bill but rather a legitimate effort to improve it.

In short, none of these pro-reform experts think CornynÂ’s proposal is a poison pill. If Democrats want to claim it is they have some explaining to do. Were they not serious when they put in the 90/100 percent standards [90% apprehension rate an 100% operational control] in the original bill?

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other liberals are starting to sound like a version of the Groucho Marx joke: They don’t want to be a member of any group that would devise a passable bill. If they can’t take “yes” for an answer, they will have many pro-immigration reform advocates and Hispanic Americans to answer to. Kicking away a deal just as it is coalescing reeks of bad faith.

So having seen the "bad faith" of the Democrats in killing the Cornyn amendment, Rubin is clearly ready to apologize to the people who have been pointing out all along that the Democrats aren't serious about security, right?

Nope, back to today's "Here comes the border security amendment" post...

RubioÂ’s office has worked with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), whose effort to beef up security, was demagogued by Schumer and others, but in recent days has turned attention to the Corker-Hoeven effort, which is expected to clarify that at least some of the enhanced security measures must be in place before green card status becomes available to those who are illegally here and otherwise qualify (e.g. paying back taxes and a fine).

...

Some Republicans remain skeptical that the Democrats will play ball. On senior adviser not directly involved in the Gang of Eight discussions e-mails me, arguing that “Dems will allow no significant changes, certainly not anything that will increase the vote total, and that as a result, it will pass narrowly–and then sit on a shelf. They don’t want to make law, they just want to pass a bill.” That may still be the case, but we will find out when the amendment is revealed and Schumer and other Dems react to the one chance to do something meaningful in President Obama’s second term.

Rubin still seems surprised that some Republicans don't trust Democrats. In fairness to her, she's clearly more a fan of the Democrat position on amnesty.

So having killed what Rubin described as a serious attempt at security she is ready to accept an amendment that is, "expected to clarify that at least some of the enhanced security measures". That's the saving grace Republicans who care about security (allegedly including Rubio and Rubin herself) are supposed to be grateful for? Instead of tying the outcome of border security to green cards as Cornyn does, Corker-Hoeven ties inputs (hiring more agents, building more fences,, etc). If those inputs don't work, oh well, too bad full steam ahead on citizenship! Earlier Rubin accused Democrats of not taking their 90/100 percent language seriously and here she is throwing it overboard too.

Basically Chuck Schumer says, "you'll get nothing and you'll like it" and Rubio fan-girl Rubin says, "thank you Senator Schumer!". If she negotiated for her clients like she does for conservatives, no wonder she's not a lawyer anymore.

What bothers me the most about Rubin isn't that she's not a conservative. She's barely a Republican yet she's the type of person liberals interact with and think real conservatives should be judged by. It's not her hackery that hurts conservatism, it's the ability of Democrats to hold her up as the model and judge the rest of us against her.

Bonus Rubin buffoonery....

My colleague Greg Sargent does a fine job calling out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) for shedding crocodile tears over concern people will die trying to get into the country illegally under the Gang of Eight plan. The argument is as insincere as it is wrong (with enhanced border security fewer people will come).

Yeah.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:29 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.

You're either going to hear about this from me, or from someone less responsible who won't be there to talk you through it and discuss the "context" of what you've just seen and what "feelings" you may be experiencing.

So it might as well be me.

The feeling you're feeling is very natural, and nothing to be ashamed about. When a man really loves a woman, you see, he sometimes feels the need to hit that shit like the fist of an angry god, and hit it unto the fires burn out from the heavens themselves.

And while we're on the general topic.

All links not really safe for work, but seriously, who could blame you?

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (238)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow that Sequester was really draconian, huh?

Meanwhile, military and military-support workers are being furloughed.

People look out for their friends and allies, and they make sure their enemies are punished.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (137)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Interestingly, I don't see anything about further "Iron Man" movies (that is, Iron Man sequels, rather than Iron Man appearing in the Avengers films).

Under the two-picture agreement, Downey will star as Tony Stark/Iron Man in “Marvel’s The Avengers 2” and “Marvel’s The Avengers 3.” Downey is represented at CAA by Bryan Lourd, Jim Toth and Matt Leaf and by his attorneys Tom Hansen and Stewart Brookman of the firm Hansen Jacobson.

Downey, Jr.’s last two Marvel films, 2012’s “Marvel’s The Avengers” and this year’s “Iron Man 3,” rank as two of the top five grossing films of all time, collectively earning over $2.7 billion worldwide to date.

Yup, two pictures means two pictures. So will Don Cheadle's Rhodey become the main character in Iron Man 4, with perhaps just a supporting presence by Tony Stark?

Now with the opening act out of the way, let's get the the Headline Performer:

There are two possible reactions to this news: Why? and What the f*** took so g****** long?

I think we can safely dispense of the former group with a condescending sigh. If you don't get Sharknado, you never will.

I'm not even really sure you had to say that much. You had me at "Sharkna--."

But in case you're still unconvinced:

The barometer shows a 100% chance of Awesome.

But wait, it gets better:

In the movie, regulars of a beachside bar including owner Fin (Ian Ziering/Beverly Hills 90210), bartender Nova (Casie Scerbo/Make It Or Break It) and local drunk George (John Heard/Home Alone) team up with FinÂ’s ex-wife April (Tara Reid/Scrubs) to investigate the ecological nightmare that has sharks swimming through the streets of Los Angeles and falling from the skies. Sharknado is a production of The Asylum.

Ian Ziering and Tara Reid? Is this a Shark-nado or an All-Star-Cast-nado? It's like A Bridge Too Far but with flying sharks.

Maybe!

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (359)
Post contains 418 words, total size 4 kb.

I didn't see this at the time, and in fact am just seeing it now, but I've heard a lot of criticism of it, including even Chris Matthews' concession that without his teleprompter, Obama really "struggled" with the text, and including this embarrassing comparison of Obama 2008 and Obama 2012:

But what about the speech? I think the best we can say is that it wasn't as harmful as it could have been, but only because it was so utterly empty.

When John F. Kennedy delivered his “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate on June 26, 1963, 450,000 people flocked to hear him. Fifty years later a far more subdued invitation-only crowd of 4,500 showed up to hear Barack Obama speak at the same location in Berlin. As The National Journal noted, “he didn’t come away with much, winning just a smattering of applause from a crowd that was one-hundredth the size of JFK’s,” and far smaller than the 200,000 boisterous Germans who had listened to his 2008 address as a presidential candidate. JFK had a clear message when he came to Berlin a half century ago – the free world must stand up to Communist tyranny. 24 years later, President Reagan stood in the same spot famously calling on the Soviets to “tear down this wall.” Reagan’s speech was a seminal moment that ushered in the downfall of an evil empire, and gave hope to tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain. It was a display of strength and conviction by the leader of the free world, sending an unequivocal message of solidarity with those who were fighting for freedom in the face of a monstrous totalitarian ideology.

In stark contrast to that of his presidential predecessors, Barack Obama’s message on Wednesday was pure mush, another clichéd “citizens of the world” polemic with little substance. This was a speech big on platitudes and hopeless idealism, while containing much that was counter-productive for the world’s superpower. Ultimately it was little more than a laundry list of Obama’s favourite liberal pet causes, including cutting nuclear weapons, warning about climate change, putting an end to all wars, shutting Guantanamo, ending global poverty, and backing the European Project. It was a combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries, and the championing of more big government solutions.

So why give this speech at all? If he had nothing much to say -- and it appears he did not -- why go through the motions?

In asking that question, let's remember Obama's equally-gaseous, equally-empty Speech Made In Front of an Impressive Array of Flags on May 23. Even the liberal Daily Beast thought it was okay to snark on it, noting that the speech could be easily digested into 248 seconds. But even in that abbreviated form, I don't see any policy initiatives or major statements.

What I see is only Obama whining that his job is hard and that he still really really wants to close Guantanamo.

So once again, the question: If there's nothing to say, why say it?

The HBO film Game Change mocks Sarah Palin for (supposedly) continuing to seek the comfort of her Woobie -- the voters of Alaska -- despite now running for a national office. The movie has a lot of fun mocking Palin's (alleged) obsession with Alaska poll numbers and plans to give speeches in safely-red Alaska.

I don't accept any of that as true. I mention it, though, because what I see Obama doing when he gets into trouble is, like the "Sarah Palin" character of Game Change, continuing to seek to return to his 2008 Woobie of world-adoration and Talkin' About Peace, like a high-school football star who always makes a point of driving by the old field and looking wistfully at the old stands, even 30 years on.

What I see is two speeches empty of new ideas. If there is no policy component to them, then they only have a political component-- that is, for Obama to remind people Hey remember you once liked me, back when I was the rock star of Europe?

But I see it also as having a psychological component, like the "Sarah Palin" character's need for the comfort of past glories.

I think Obama gave these speeches largely for himself, to convince himself that he's still the Rock Star of 2008. But if he was seeking comfort that he still had his Magic and Mojo, it looks like searched in vain.

Below, some embarrassing video of Obama "struggling with the text" -- Chris Matthews' words, mind you -- and then trying to get some kind of Justin Bieber thing going by announcing he was taking off his jacket.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (235)
Post contains 829 words, total size 6 kb.

The House version of the farm bill includes cuts (well, "Washington Cuts," at least). The restrictions on the food stamp program are the Administration's chief (stated) objection to the House bill.

The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a massive, five-year farm bill, saying food stamp cuts included in the legislation could leave some Americans hungry.

The House is preparing to consider the bill this week. The legislation would cut $2 billion annually, or around 3 percent, from food stamps and make it harder for some people to qualify for the program. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, cost almost $80 billion last year, twice the amount it cost five years ago.

The Senate passed its version of the farm bill last week with only a fifth of the amount of those cuts, or about $400 million a year, with the support of the administration.

But the House bill would cut other boondoggles:

The bill, which costs nearly $100 billion a year, would save a total of about $4 billion annually, including the food stamp cuts. It would eliminate some subsidies while creating others, raising subsidy levels for several crops. It would expand the current crop insurance program and also create a new type of crop insurance that would kick in sooner than the paid insurance farmers have now.

I don't like the "creating other subsidies" part but cheaper is cheaper.

The porkier Senate bill, supported by the White House, was just voted down in the House 195-234.

More: The Hill writes this up as a blow to Boehner, who I guess let it proceed to a vote.

Interestingly -- I didn't guess this when I first put up the story -- a lot of Democrats voted against the bill, because they don't like even the pittance of cuts in the Senate version. The Republican caucus actually split, I would imagine among the typical farm-subsidy-state and non-farm-subsidy-state lines.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 AM | Comments (285)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

A commenter was tired of the amnesty posts and suggested one about The Monster Cap'n Crunch.

This man (I use the term in a biological sense only) claims to be a captain -- or should I say, "Cap'n." yet:

Three stripes. Three stripes, not four.

The Navy has further exposed him:

" 'You are correct that Cap'n Crunch appears to be wearing the rank of a U.S. Navy commander,' Lt. Cmdr. Sarah Flaherty, a U.S. Navy spokeswoman, tells Foreign Policy. 'Oddly, our personnel records do not show a "Cap'n Crunch" who currently serves or has served in the Navy.' "

Here is how The Liar attempts to defend himself, on Twitter:

"So much fuss about my name. O, be some other name. What's in a name? That which we call Cap'n Crunch, by any other name would taste as sweet"

I passed on this story because I wasn't sure of the details, and I did not want to malign a service-member unduly.

I also passed on it because I thought that "Captain" is both a rank and a position. By which I mean, if you're the skipper of a boat, you're addressed as "captain" by your crew even if your actual rank is commander (or lower-- even a seaman can be a captain, I think, if pushed into that position by the deaths of ranking officers).

So it would not matter (if I'm right about this) that he's only a Commander; if he skippers his own boat, then he's also a Captain, at least on that boat.

Because "Captain" is an important position in addition to being a rank, the Navy has made up a different title, "Commodore," for those persons on board a ship who may have the rank of Captain but who are not actually captains of the ship they're on. It's important to know who the actual captain is, so if there's another captain aboard (or, I think, a technically higher-ranking officer like an admiral who is not, despite his higher rank, actually the captain of the ship), he gets called Commodore and not captain.

That's what I thought, anyway. So perhaps we're all rushing to judgment on this Cap'n Crunch affair. I don't know why he's not listed in the Navy's records but it's possible "Crunch" is a nickname, maybe given to him to emphasize his diligent work-habits and razor-cut abs, or perhaps given derogatorily by his men due to his erratic, obsessive behavior when a couple of messboys stole some Crunchberries from the ship's stocks.

Pushback: I see various definitions of "Commodore" in the comments (which might actually all be the same definition). I think I'm wrong (even though I got my definition from two unimpeachable sources -- Star Trek and Starship Troopers).

Wikipedia says...

Traditionally, "commodore" is the title for any officer assigned to command more than one ship at a time, even temporarily, much as "captain" is the traditional title for the commanding officer of a single ship even if the officer's official title in the service is a lower rank. As an official rank, a commodore typically commands a flotilla or squadron of ships as part of a larger task force or naval fleet commanded by an admiral.

It is often regarded as a one-star rank with a NATO code of OF-6 (which is known in the U.S. as "rear admiral (lower half)"), but whether it is regarded as a flag rank varies between countries.[1]

I can't find any citation to back up my belief that "commodore" serves as a rank of convenience to avoid a Two Captains on One Ship problem. Maybe Heinlein made that up, or maybe I'm just misremembering.

Posted by: Ace at 09:10 AM | Comments (420)
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

I have to clear up an error -- yesterday I said this was a pro-amnesty rally, because I couldn't figure out why the hell the cops could possibly have any interest in keeping Tea Partiers out, apart from worrying that pro-amnesty lefties and anti-amnesty Tea Partiers might clash.

Well, it turns out they didn't even have that excuse. They just decided the Tea Party couldn't be present at the immigration law rally.

At the rally, Rubio's name was booed. I think a lot of the political calculation that amnesty can be had flows from the idea that Marco Rubio is out in front of the effort and he's not paying any price-- so it's safe for Corker and all the rest to get on the train.

But maybe it's not as safe as thought. I think Rubio's supporters keep expecting him to do the right thing (in their opinion) and he keeps on... not. And maybe he's starting to lose the goodwill he had built up 2010-2012.

Rubio, who has been attempting to sell the Gang of Eight bill to conservatives for months, came under fire during the rally. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, the co-author of a report estimating the net costs of illegal immigration and amnesty to the taxpayer, took aim at the Florida senator. “No matter what Marco Rubio says, who has not read his own bill, incidentally . . . ” was how Rector began a criticism of the immigration legislation. At one point, when Rector mentioned Rubio, the assembled tea partiers booed loudly, with at least one person shouting, “Traitor!” One sign read, “Rubio Lies, America dies.” Another read, “6.3 Trillion $, Cost of Marcos Amnesty Bill. (Net.)”

“The thing I find most offensive of all is Senator Rubio’s staff saying that we need to have more low-skilled immigrants because American workers can’t cut it,” Rector thundered, referring to comments an anonymous aide made to the The New Yorker. “I say the American dream belongs to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants first,” Rector said.

What's galling in this alleged "debate" is that the right is expected to sign up for a lot of things they oppose, and the elected representatives are expected to vote against our wishes.

And yet, on the Democratic side, whenever it is suggested that we actually increase border security, the amendment is quickly shot down, for this reason: Our base won't go for that. That's a red line for our base. If you include that, you'll lose Democrats.

I do not see the same dynamic playing out with respect to the right's demands and red-lines.

We've got a couple of demands and red-lines of our own, in case anyone bothers to ask.

But no one does bother to ask.

That's a problem, isn't it?

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (316)
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

Sorry for all the amnesty posts but today is the start of the end game on amnesty.

Reid brought up the Cornyn Amendment which was a scam to begin with but it was the strongest chance to stop citizenship. Now the Senate is voting to table, aka kill, the amendment.

The thing the Democrats don't like is it would have allowed immediate legalization but would have required actual border security benchmarks before moving onto green cards and citizenship.

That's a bridge too far for Democrats.

Once upon a time, Marco Rubio praised the amendment as improving the bil. But being a liar, he...lied. Now the key is the pretend Corker-Hoeven amendment that doesn't require actual border security but only border security "goals".

Marco Rubio is in favor of border security all right. As long as Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Dick Durban let him.

Update: It's going to be tabled and along with it any chance of enforceable triggers. Flake and McCain have already voted with Dems to kill it. Marco is...hiding.

Rubio votes no on tabling the Cornyn amendment. Will he vote no on the whole package or will the faux Corker-Hoeven bill be enough cover for him?

Lindsey Graham voted to kill it, so Rubio was only Republican Gang of 8 member to support Cornyn.

Cornyn's hard trigger amendment tabled. It need 60 votes to survive, but only got 54.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:12 AM | Comments (123)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

ThereÂ’s a lot of anger in the conservative base about the amnesty sellout thatÂ’s underway and disappointment in one time favorites like Marco Rubio but what will it translate to in 2014/2016.

The cry will always be…”But the Democrat is worse!”. This is usually sort of true but so what? The only way to reform the GOP is to stop rewarding it for selling out on basic principles. Even if you support amnesty (and there are conservatives who do), I would think that expanding the disaster that is ObamaCare is a red line we should all agree not to cross. And yet….

You can’t call me a RINO because I’m not a Republican. I had to reregister to vote before the election last year and went “independent”. Now clearly it’s nearly impossible for me to conceive of voting for a Democrat so I’m not an “independent” in the traditional “swing voter” sense. I am however a “swing voter” now in that I will either not vote for a Republican or will vote Libertarian or another 3rd party.

Not everything can be a “Go to ELEVENTY!1!11!!1! issue” but there has to be two or three key issue a candidate or a party simply can’t violate and still lay a claim to your support. Right now for me, I will not vote or support in any way a Republican who votes for an amnesty first plan or anything that expands or “fixes” ObamaCare in anyway. Those are my two red lines.

I sucked it up in the past and voted for McCain and then Romney. No more.

The GOP will continue to lie to us and count on our support because we always come back. Why would they change when thereÂ’s never a price to pay? Even when we rally together to change the party and elect a guy like Marco RubioÂ….nothing changes.

It’s time to stop buying into the scare tactics of…”The Democrats are worse”. It might be true but that doesn’t mean that the Republicans are the answer. Yes, it’s hard to kill a political party and build a new one but it’s happened before. That it’s so hard to do is an indication of how important it is that it be done.

ItÂ’s time to hold individual members responsible if they support garbage like this, either for reelection or if they attempt to run for higher office. If Amnesty should somehow get by the House, then itÂ’s time to hold the whole damn party accountable.

So, what are your red lines? Really think about what line canÂ’t be crossed and then hold Republicans to them not just in their words but their deeds.

Adedd: One thing I should have noted...amnesty isn't a case of the GOP being on the wrong side of the public and simply unable to stem the tide. This is an issue where Republicans have strong public support and the party in government is simply caving in despite the express wishes of its voters (in 2007, 2008 and 2012). This is basically mutiny by the political class. It must be punished.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:09 AM | Comments (449)
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.